DescentBB

Hammer Smith wrote:The folks who are getting the free ★■◆●, don't like the folks who are paying for the free ★■◆●,Because the folks who are paying for the free ★■◆●,Can no longer afford to pay for both the free ★■◆● and their own ★■◆●,
And,The folks who are paying for the free ★■◆●,Want the free ★■◆● to stop.and the the folks who are getting the free ★■◆●,Want even more free ★■◆● on top of the free ★■◆● they are already getting!
Now... The people who are forcing the people who Pay for the free ★■◆●,Have told the people who are RECEIVING the free ★■◆●,That the people who are PAYING for the free ★■◆●,Are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.
So... the people who are GETTING the free ★■◆●,Have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free ★■◆●,By the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free ★■◆●,And giving them the free ★■◆● in the first place.
We have let the free ★■◆● giving go on for so long that there areNow more people getting free ★■◆● than paying for the free ★■◆●.
Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicidesomewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason? The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electingpeople who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.
The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people nowgetting free ★■◆● outnumbers the people paying for the free ★■◆●. We have one chance to change thatin 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.



ELECTION 2012 IS COMING

A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!

I'M 100% for PASSING THIS ON!!!

Let’s Take a Stand!!!
Obama: Gone!

Borders: Closed!

Language: English only

Culture: Constitution, and the Bill of Rights!

Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!

NO freebies to: Non-Citizens!

Well he summed it up.

So if I apply for the free ★■◆●, will I be able to get some of my ★■◆● back?

Saving money by strengthening drug enforcement? LOL yeah right.

funny I didn't read anything about drug enforcement.

hammer smith is a ★■◆●ing idiot.

That really is obscenely over-simplified at best, and flat-out wrong at worst.

mandatory drug screening before welfare.

lol.

the problem with that is it essentially paints everyone a drug addict just because they walked into the welfare office. Don't you just love broad brush strokes?

Ferno wrote:mandatory drug screening before welfare.

lol.

the problem with that is it essentially paints everyone a drug addict just because they walked into the welfare office. Don't you just love broad brush strokes?

Wouldn't that be the same way when you apply for a job because you walk into a job interview?

callmeslick wrote:hammer smith is a ★■◆●ing idiot.

Wow same thing could be same about you or any one on this forum. Yelling Tax The rich Tax the rich Tax that rich mantra comes from the left all the time. Let us make them pay for others free stuff.

Heretic wrote:

callmeslick wrote:hammer smith is a **** idiot.

Wow same thing could be same about you or any one on this forum. Yelling Tax The rich Tax the rich Tax that rich mantra comes from the left all the time. Let us make them pay for others free stuff.

no, that fool is a cut above. He blames Obama, but for what? Then, he goes on to suggest closing the borders and folks to speak English only, apparently completely ignorant of US history. Futher, he suggests that out 'culture' consists of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Huh? Where does that constitute 'culture'? Also, the Bill of Rights is PART of the Constitution, seeing as how it consists of a group of amendments to the original document. Finally, the buffoon implies that 'freebies to non-citizens' or some such are a core issue. Really? Seriously? Get real, Heretic, you've reprinted the words of a complete looney-tune, and it doesn't flatter yourownself to do so.

First he blames Obama instigating class warfare by it's the rich, it's the rich fault. (oh and Obama and company in DC are the rich also) If you knew anything about American law you would know they have to have a working knowledge of English even to become a citizen of the United States. Why not make them take the test in English. What is wrong with protecting and closing our borders like most other countries do? Just why can't America do this?

America is looking kind of whorish nowadays. It's a reflection of leadership.

Heretic wrote:First he blames Obama instigating class warfare by it's the rich, it's the rich fault. (oh and Obama and company in DC are the rich also) If you knew anything about American law you would know they have to have a working knowledge of English even to become a citizen of the United States. Why not make them take the test in English. What is wrong with protecting and closing our borders like most other countries do? Just why can't America do this?

I suppose we could do that if you wanted the economy to implode even harder.

null0010 wrote:

Heretic wrote:First he blames Obama instigating class warfare by it's the rich, it's the rich fault. (oh and Obama and company in DC are the rich also) If you knew anything about American law you would know they have to have a working knowledge of English even to become a citizen of the United States. Why not make them take the test in English. What is wrong with protecting and closing our borders like most other countries do? Just why can't America do this?

I suppose we could do that if you wanted the economy to implode even harder.

I'd rather have an unemployment line than have businesses close due to lack labour.

with approx 15,000,000 (by the governments doctored numbers) people currently unemployed, I don't think lack of a work force will be a problem.

15,000,000 that would need to be forced to work the jobs vacated by illegals.

how many of your workers would pick strawberries for 12 hours days for 60 bux a day?

null0010 wrote:I suppose we could do that if you wanted the economy to implode even harder.

If you haven't notice economies are imploding world wide just happening at a slow pace.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... tdown.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/stor ... 50735002/1

http://www.industryweek.com/articles/eu ... 22116.aspx

Some how is America going to be different that. We are going to some how to avoid the meltdown with our massive industrial complex that happens to be where now? Every where but here. Why? Because of those in Washington.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/28-3

Wow we are creating Jobs but where? Not here.

fliptw wrote:15,000,000 that would need to be forced to work the jobs vacated by illegals.

how many of your workers would pick strawberries for 12 hours days for 60 bux a day?

Cash money?

CUDA wrote:with approx 15,000,000 (by the governments doctored numbers) people currently unemployed, I don't think lack of a work force will be a problem.

Government never tells true numbers Real numbers put it at 22%





Leaving around 73 million people to take over the 20 million illegals jobs still leaving another 53 million out of work.

CUDA wrote:with approx 15,000,000 (by the governments doctored numbers) people currently unemployed, I don't think lack of a work force will be a problem.

tell that to orchard owners and other agricultural businessmen in Alabama, they might disagree of late.

Just heard that 1 out of 15 people now live below the poverty line in our wonderful land of opportunity.

And 45 million are on food stamps

tunnelcat wrote:Just heard that 1 out of 15 people now live below the poverty line in our wonderful land of opportunity.

Can you back that up with some hard data please? Sorry if I don't take you word.

Heretic wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Just heard that 1 out of 15 people now live below the poverty line in our wonderful land of opportunity.

Can you back that up with some hard data please? Sorry if I don't take you word.

numbers were released yesterday. Any major newspaper should have coverage. I heard it on two different radio stations on the drive in today, and read it on Bloomberg.

Heretic wrote:Wouldn't that be the same way when you apply for a job because you walk into a job interview?

no.

for starters, you're usually seeking welfare because you have nowhere else to turn for support. number two, you're not exactly dropping off a resume, and number three, you're usually clocking in and being at a certain location day to day.

there are many many reasons why welfare is completely different than applying for a job, but those three are the ones I could think of right away.

question for you heretic: Can you think of one thing that the rich have done to actually help create jobs other than have an opinion piece published?

Define the rich. One Person Or a Company.

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will give hundreds of millions of dollars to the poor. Bill gates has created jobs.

Late Steve Jobs.

Little closer to home a company own by a man who immigrate from France. Spent ever bit of his millions opening an Import Specialty Food Distribution. 13 years later he has bought another company and has created 23 jobs in the last 2 years in a recession.

Google has created another 6000 jobs this year world wide a 25 percent increase.

How about you do you know any one who has created Jobs?

Our own Sir Brags Alot even hires people to take care of his place.

Woodbridge Corp is hiring around the world. I think there is one up north there in your country.

Hell even I hire a person here and there. Even got a handyman on call.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:with approx 15,000,000 (by the governments doctored numbers) people currently unemployed, I don't think lack of a work force will be a problem.

tell that to orchard owners and other agricultural businessmen in Alabama, they might disagree of late.

I suppose from your elevated social strata Slick, that the idea that anyone other than a illegal immigrant might want to work in agriculture would have to have their head examined. In high school, I and a number of other students worked for a apple orchard business and in the summer worked for a local produce distributor here in Michigan. Funny how I don't remember any illegals back then. Perhaps it is people like you who have stigmatized working in the fields as a demeaning job that is suited for only poor Mexicans. I'd rather pick produce than sit around on my lazy ass waiting for a welfare check to show up but then thats just me.

Ferno wrote:

Heretic wrote:Wouldn't that be the same way when you apply for a job because you walk into a job interview?

no.

for starters, you're usually seeking welfare because you have nowhere else to turn for support. number two, you're not exactly dropping off a resume, and number three, you're usually clocking in and being at a certain location day to day.

there are many many reasons why welfare is completely different than applying for a job, but those three are the ones I could think of right away.

Don't you think Ferny, that we the tax payer should have the right to know if the person seeking welfare is doing so because his drug habit has cost him his job? I'd rather know he has a drug problem and help him to kick it than do the cruel thing by just giving him money so he can continue his habit.

Ferno wrote:question for you heretic: Can you think of one thing that the rich have done to actually help create jobs other than have an opinion piece published?

Umm Ferno, you can be extremely bright at times, other time a complete dolt. Remember back when the luxury tax was enacted and the rich stopped buying expensive things like boats and airplanes? Do you remember how a short time later big boat companies started laying off people due to lack of sales. And a short time after the tax was repealed? The rich buy a lot of things that keep business's alive and healthy and keep people working. I suggest you rethink your statement.

Perhaps it is people like you who have stigmatized working in the fields as a demeaning job that is suited for only poor Mexicans. I'd rather pick produce than sit around on my lazy ass waiting for a welfare check to show up but then thats just me.

Absolute truth. Did the very same thing with the construction industry. I always had money and plenty of it till they opened the flood gates up to cheap labor. Akin to throwing a monkey wrench into the works. Watch this

I find it amazing how people keep crying for more and more of a welfare state and "equity" in income in this nation. people need to read up on the History of democracies and how and why they ALL fell. this nation is there now. we are at the precipice and we have our foot out in open air waiting to step off.

The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

granted this is a cut and past. but do the research for your self. it is fact. unless we stop the dependence of the people on the government. this nation will fail.

Those that forget their past, are doomed to repeat it

Heretic wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Just heard that 1 out of 15 people now live below the poverty line in our wonderful land of opportunity.

Can you back that up with some hard data please? Sorry if I don't take you word.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-573 ... rest-poor/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_i ... 11-03.html

Will that do it for you?

Heretic wrote:Define the rich. One Person Or a Company.

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will give hundreds of millions of dollars to the poor. Bill gates has created jobs.

Late Steve Jobs.

Little closer to home a company own by a man who immigrate from France. Spent ever bit of his millions opening an Import Specialty Food Distribution. 13 years later he has bought another company and has created 23 jobs in the last 2 years in a recession.

Google has created another 6000 jobs this year world wide a 25 percent increase.

How about you do you know any one who has created Jobs?

Our own Sir Brags Alot even hires people to take care of his place.

Woodbridge Corp is hiring around the world. I think there is one up north there in your country.

Hell even I hire a person here and there. Even got a handyman on call.

You're missing the whole point. And, for the record, you aren't alone. Very few politicians get the point, either. It isn't about soaking the rich to give to the poor. It's about turning around a nation who has developed, over thirty or more years, an economy aiming directly to third-world status. Think of it like a war, of sorts. And, to keep with that analogy, war is generally only successful when the society involved sacrifices, from top to bottom. We, as a nation, did so in World War II, yet failed to do so in later wars. Note the difference in outcome. At present, we are faced with a death-wish economy unless we, as a nation:
1. rebuild and modernize our infrastructure
2. re-establish education of the highest level to the prominence it once had in our society.
3. re-train mid-age workforce to modern standards
4. rebuild our committment to basic research, and establish scientific goals that will pay dividends(ex-Kennedy's moon target).
5. re-establish a system under which capitalism/finance is regulated to refocus corporations and individuals back onto long-term
gain instead of the present focus on short-term large profit.

if every one of the above is not done, we're screwed.....well, at least most of us are. Those of us with decent levels of inherited wealth, larger property holdings and diverse investments will survive, but the society in which we do so will absolutely suck.
Obama, as best as I can tell, is and has been the ONLY political player even attempting to get this message across. The fix isn't going to be fast, it isn't going to be easy, and it will require sacrifice by ALL citizens to work. The sacrifice on the part of the wealthy is a heftier contribution to the government role(and there HAS to be a government role in a modern, global society and economy) in achieving the above goals. Guess what? If my taxes go up by 20%, I still hire just as many people, and the same will be true for Gates and Buffett, as well. It worked in the 1950s and 60s, and it will work now. In fact, such a sacrifice HAS to work now or we all suffer. That is what it is about, not some sort of Robin Hood meets Dr. Dre type of gangsta redistribution. The alternative, as we've seen for SO long, is constant dithering and bickering over failed ideologies and TV news talking points full of easy answers. How's that worked so far? For some to suggest, as I sort of read CUDA doing, that we'll be just fine if we return to the nation's roots, is noble-sounding, but wrongheaded. The nation, at it's founding, was largely agrarian, and had no concept of capitalism(the word had barely been coined as a theory). To return to that point is to assume that none of what came to pass in the past 200-plus years affected those realities, and that just isn't true.

as I sort of read CUDA doing,that we'll be just fine if we return to the nation's roots,

that's not what I said. not even close.
I said we need to stop this national culture of dependency.
the U.S. was once an industrialized nation, (last century) that produced most of the worlds goods. now we're a service oriented nation that hardly produces anything. so we went from a nation that worked for it's needs to a nation that gets waited on.

abundance to complacency; complacency to apathy; apathy to dependence;

woodchip wrote:
Don't you think Ferny, that we the tax payer should have the right to know if the person seeking welfare is doing so because his drug habit has cost him his job? I'd rather know he has a drug problem and help him to kick it than do the cruel thing by just giving him money so he can continue his habit.

and who are you to decide what he should do with his life? If he has a drug problem, let him seek help. Let him make the decision. It shouldn't ever be up to us to decide what he should do.

Umm Ferno, you can be extremely bright at times, other time a complete dolt. Remember back when the luxury tax was enacted and the rich stopped buying expensive things like boats and airplanes? Do you remember how a short time later big boat companies started laying off people due to lack of sales. And a short time after the tax was repealed? The rich buy a lot of things that keep businesses alive and healthy and keep people working. I suggest you rethink your statement.

If a large boat business started laying people off because of a tax that caused clients to cease transactions, they weren't very large to begin with. I bet you my bottom dollar that more than just a luxury tax contributed to the decline of sales, and blaming one variable in a sea of uncertainties is dangerously simplistic at best.

btw: fixed it for you.

I want to add to my rant above, which I also posted elsewhere, the explanation I gave to folks there of how I came to these ideas. It doesn't involve 24 hour News Channel soundbites or radio talk host thinking. To wit, I stated:






......my view of how capitalism and economics work was formed by my upbringing. Primarily, by learning from my Dad, who retired in 1981 from DuPont as VP of Research, and from observing the operational practices of the bank which my family owned for several generations(now, part of PNC). What I saw was long-term planning. In other words, companies that planned for income and profitablity for years to come. DuPont was famous for this. The pipeline was put in place, at great short-term cost, that yielded a constant flow of new products. And, boy, did they make money. Likewise, on a much smaller scale the bank. We were profitable from 1870 until purchased in 1975. Always profitable, too, no matter what the economic picture in the present tense was. That was, at one time, how ALL successful businesses were modelled. We have evolved, over the past 30 years into a culture/society which values immediate gratification and short term riches, and are willing to ignore and even risk our future to do so. This goes to current corporate behavior, and carries on to the individuals using home-equity and credit cards to get the things they think they deserve now. That culture will not change without a mix of regulation,sacrifice and restraint. I thinik, or at least hope, that the current downturn has woken most folks up to the personal restraint part, if only by force of harsh realities. However, corporate culture will not change without strong regulatory pressure, and rebuilding the damage done by shortsighted management of our industrial base and national infrastructure is going to cost real money which only government can or will be willing to provide.

now, the usual suspects can feel free to deride the above for it's 'leftist' philosophies and radical thinking. I tend to see it as rooted in an Eisenhower Republican view of governance, and an ideal of capitalism rooted in traditional American values. YMMV.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:
Don't you think Ferny, that we the tax payer should have the right to know if the person seeking welfare is doing so because his drug habit has cost him his job? I'd rather know he has a drug problem and help him to kick it than do the cruel thing by just giving him money so he can continue his habit.

and who are you to decide what he should do with his life? If he has a drug problem, let him seek help. Let him make the decision. It shouldn't ever be up to us to decide what he should do.

He can decide to do what ever he wants. When he wants you and I to pay then I think he has to submit to certain requirements.

Ferno wrote:

Umm Ferno, you can be extremely bright at times, other time a complete dolt. Remember back when the luxury tax was enacted and the rich stopped buying expensive things like boats and airplanes? Do you remember how a short time later big boat companies started laying off people due to lack of sales. And a short time after the tax was repealed? The rich buy a lot of things that keep businesses alive and healthy and keep people working. I suggest you rethink your statement.

If a large boat business started laying people off because of a tax that caused clients to cease transactions, they weren't very large to begin with. I bet you my bottom dollar that more than just a luxury tax contributed to the decline of sales, and blaming one variable in a sea of uncertainties is dangerously simplistic at best.

btw: fixed it for you.

Does this sound like small business?:

"The luxury tax was meant to soak the blue-blazer crowd when it went into effect in 1991. Instead, it slammed into the boating industry with the force of a northeaster, leaving the scattered debris of decreased sales and lost jobs.

Before the tax went into effect, there were 600,000 people employed in the marine industry nationwide. The recession cost 100,000 jobs, and the luxury tax resulted in the loss of another 25,000, the National Marine Manufacturers Association estimates. Boat sales nationally dropped 42 percent during the period, from $17 billion in 1989 to $10 billion in 1992."

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-0 ... g-industry

Does 25k jobs sound like small potatoes Ferny?

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:
Don't you think Ferny, that we the tax payer should have the right to know if the person seeking welfare is doing so because his drug habit has cost him his job? I'd rather know he has a drug problem and help him to kick it than do the cruel thing by just giving him money so he can continue his habit.

and who are you to decide what he should do with his life? If he has a drug problem, let him seek help. Let him make the decision. It shouldn't ever be up to us to decide what he should do.

well first off the Drugs they will be screening for are illegal. so if he wants government assistance (tax payer money) should we not do a background screen and make sure he's not involved in illegal activities???
second.you cannot even fly without going through a screening, the government tells you every day what you can and cannot do. they tell you to drive 55, wear your seatbelt. you must have auto insurance. Now they are even mandating you have health insurance. what if I don't want to drive 55 or wear a seatbelt? I am made to by the government. so your argument that "It shouldn't ever be up to us to decide what he should do" doesn't hold water.

CUDA wrote:abundance to complacency; complacency to apathy; apathy to dependence;

and may I add to the end of that; dependency to servitude.

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:abundance to complacency; complacency to apathy; apathy to dependence;

and may I add to the end of that; dependency to servitude.

agreed