Thread: Just a simple question:

Originally Posted by Hitch

Notice who is crying about this thread? Its either your way or the highway? Whatever.

Notice in fact, this thread did stimulate thought. Why would a limit on recipient voters be such a bad thing? Thier vote is a conflict to my interests, in some cases. Of course we know how they will vote...and why. Its a no-brainer.

Guyver is actually a fairly conservative christian.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Spending on welfare when Bush took office: 293.5 Billion
Spending on welfare when Bush left office: 497.4 Billion

Difference: + 203.9 Billion

Spending on welfare when Obama took office: 497.4 Billion
Spending on welfare today: 697.5 Billion

Difference: + 200.1 Billion

Keep in mind, advertising campaigns for food stamps was done under Bush and has continued under the Obama Administration. But let's ignore all logic and facts, who needs those right? This way we can continue to believe that there really is a fundamental difference between these two parties.

Source: Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2012 - Charts Tables History

Wait but why don't the Republican supporters talk about this?

Spending on military when Bush took office: 358.9 Billion
Spending on military when Bush left office: 730.7 Billion

Difference: + 371.8 Billion (Doubled)


Spending on military when Obama took office: 730.7 Billion
Spending on military today: 903.2 Billion

Difference: + 172.5 Billion


Here's another for you Republican supporters who think it's only the Democrats who increase government spending. Never mind the fact that the Republicans under Bush had more government spending than any other administration in history.

Spending on education when Bush took office: 542.8 Billion
Spending on education when Bush left office: 857.7 Billion

Difference: + 314.9 Billion


Not exactly double, but thank you Mr. Ron Paul for pointing that out: Here

But there is a difference right? Am I right guys, there really is a difference between these parties right?

27 years old and still as true now as it was then:

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?




You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the constitutional authority to vote n appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. The Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. the Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of 238 million- are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Bank because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I exclude all of the special interest and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Don't you see now the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. they cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept. it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes. O'Neill is speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
Just 545 Americans have fouled up this great nation.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted - by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise complete power over the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.


If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it's because they want them in Lebanon.
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical force like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. they and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

545 people are responsible for the mess, but they unite in a common con - Orlando Sentinel

Originally Posted by Hitch

Notice who is crying about this thread? Its either your way or the highway? Whatever.

A troll is a troll, no matter what side of the fence you're on ....you lose. Good day, sir. You stole fizzy-lifting drinks, you get nothing.

Originally Posted by Hitch

Notice who is crying about this thread? Its either your way or the highway? Whatever.

Notice in fact, this thread did stimulate thought. Why would a limit on recipient voters be such a bad thing? Thier vote is a conflict to my interests, in some cases. Of course we know how they will vote...and why. Its a no-brainer.

Well, to answer your first "question", a limit on recipient voters would be a bad thing because its unconstitutional. The only citizens who void their right to vote are felons. Excluding poor people from voting makes about as much sense as excluding trees from Central Park.

Their vote may be against your OWN interests, but it's their right as citizens to vote FOR their own interests. Just like you have the right to vote for your own interests instead of theirs.

This kind of shit is appalling, to be honest. It's like the idiot petitions to deport someone because of their beliefs, or to deport those who want to deport them, or whatever other stupid-ass petitions are going around these days.

And as has been pointed out multiple times in multiple threads....the people that abuse the system and cause all this negative feeling towards these programs, they're a rather low percentage of the people "on the dole", so to speak. You can show anecdotal evidence that people take advantage of the system, and for each one of those I'll show you a rich person who lies on their taxes and/or hides money from the IRS. Anecdotal stories are just that, anecdotes.

~Morningfrost

Imagine if the % of the poor that abused the systems set up to help the poor was the same as the % of the rich that abuse the systems set up to help the rich.

We would spend 100 trillion a year on welfare then.

Good thinking Hitch. Anyone that uses a tax code to their benefit should not be allowed to vote OR spend money on any political/lobby group in any way because THEIR interests go directly against my interest.

Originally Posted by Glitch

Imagine if the % of the poor that abused the systems set up to help the poor was the same as the % of the rich that abuse the systems set up to help the rich.

We would spend 100 trillion a year on welfare then.

Good thinking Hitch. Anyone that uses a tax code to their benefit should not be allowed to vote OR spend money on any political/lobby group in any way because THEIR interests go directly against my interest.

Thats sum backward ass thinking right there. The number of poor abusing the system is already higher then the number of rich that abuse the system because there is more poor then rich people. Your also saying that the rich using legitimate tax breaks is the same as someone sucking the system dry when it isnt the same.

Your also saying that someone using the tax code as it is currently designed is some how wrong. That is not the case because we ALL use the tax code to our benefit. I highly doubt you put 0 in your deductions line.

Originally Posted by Guyver

A troll is a troll, no matter what side of the fence you're on ....you lose. Good day, sir. You stole fizzy-lifting drinks, you get nothing.

The issue was addressed by a mod already move along or post something of relevance.