Politics

[tunatoy76]

Better be careful. There's an angry Aussie on this site who might take offense.

Thought you were ignoring me? Not angry, just confused, I thought you guys beat the fascist's? Wondering why you admire a self confessed neo Nazi that supplies your information on the world?

 

[tunatoy76]

Absolutely no disrespect meant. I am hoping a zombie apocalypse can happen and provide them with much needed relief. Maybe they need their OWN chant... say... "Let's go, score some more!" (It IS Scott Morrison, right?)

And it's Joe Biden for you guys right, you know the one, keeps your military stocked up with tranny's apparently.

 

[CJW]

Brandon Lee was killed years ago and they still haven't learned. Will be interesting to hear the details on this one.

RIP to this victim of stupidity.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

And it's Joe Biden for you guys right, you know the one, keeps your military stocked up with tranny's apparently.

I have no love for our current POTUS. I did not vote for him. I do not support what he wants. Sadly, there's a lot of us in that boat right now, including Australia and Canada, to listen to members from both of those countries. My own default is to try and find the humor in most situations. It's either laugh or cry, and I'd rather laugh.

 

[Ray B]

It's either laugh or cry, and I'd rather laugh.

There's a third possibility, remain calm, control your breathing and do what you can to positively influence the situation.

 

[Big5]

I find it difficult to laugh. Sippy Cup Joe is a joke beyond what I ever could have imagined to be seated in the White House as the President.

 

[CJW]

I guess he doesn't know that when it's in his hands he has ultimate responsibility for how it's handled and what comes out of it. Maybe he should spend more time learning firearm safety instead of on being anti gun.

Prop gun fired by Alec Baldwin contained live bullet: Report

The gun that actor Alec Baldwin fired, accidentally killing one and injuring another, contained a real bullet, a new report says.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Boyd Brooks]

I have no love for our current POTUS. I did not vote for him. I do not support what he wants. Sadly, there's a lot of us in that boat right now, including Australia and Canada, to listen to members from both of those countries. My own default is to try and find the humor in most situations. It's either laugh or cry, and I'd rather laugh.

Yes, we are in the same boat, with a mindless libiturd at the helm. Justin Turdeau is collapsing our economy at an alarming rate in the name of climate change. Driving fuel prices to record levels as well as inflation.The 1% of globalists get rich while everyone else pays.
It is so unfortunate that political correctness has led to countries being run by drama teachers, Alzheimer's patients and other libiturds that dumb fu*ks keep electing.
There needs to be electoral reform! You can’t vote if you are getting free handouts from government or have an IQ of a hammer handle.
Rant over.

 

[sgt_zim]

Yes, we are in the same boat, with a mindless libiturd at the helm. Justin Turdeau is collapsing our economy at an alarming rate in the name of climate change. Driving fuel prices to record levels as well as inflation.The 1% of globalists get rich while everyone else pays.
It is so unfortunate that political correctness has led to countries being run by drama teachers, Alzheimer's patients and other libiturds that dumb fu*ks keep electing.
There needs to be electoral reform! You can’t vote if you are getting free handouts from government or have an IQ of a hammer handle.
Rant over.

Voting should only be allowed for people with actual skin in the game. That would eliminate about 50-60% of the people in the US, who "pay" negative income taxes (they get bigger refunds than what they paid in).

 

[Newboomer]

Voting should only be allowed for people with actual skin in the game. That would eliminate about 50-60% of the people in the US, who "pay" negative income taxes (they get bigger refunds than what they paid in).

All the more reason for voter ID, PICTURE ID shown at the polling place, no mail in except for active military deployed overseas, and people working overseas.

 

[Vashper]

Rather comfortable, I think

Voting should only be allowed for people with actual skin in the game. That would eliminate about 50-60% of the people in the US, who "pay" negative income taxes (they get bigger refunds than what they paid in).

Oh, it's been known for a long time. If only hunters vote, then governments will be right-wing conservative and nationalist. This was told to me by a political scientist, himself quite a liberal and not a hunter, about 20 years ago.

 

[Ray B]

I don't have a problem with any citizen having a vote- as long as he/she isn't dead, only gets one vote and is mentally competent to not sign the ballot and hand it over to a harvester to complete and submit. this system would work as long as the founding father's aspirations were met- that is, the electorate was educated, and the government was limited to having a balanced budget.

 

[Vashper]

Democracy in its natural state is the rights and obligations of an investor in a joint venture. That is, those who financed the state had civil rights. Children, unemployed women, slaves, madmen - naturally had no right to determine how best to spend public money.
modern "democracy" with the right to vote for those living on benefits is not a democracy at all, it is a system that has appropriated this name for itself.

 

[CoElkHunter]

I don't have a problem with any citizen having a vote- as long as he/she isn't dead, only gets one vote and is mentally competent to not sign the ballot and hand it over to a harvester to complete and submit. this system would work as long as the founding father's aspirations were met- that is, the electorate was educated, and the government was limited to having a balanced budget.

In our Founding Fathers day, if you didn't work, you didn't eat. Now, one doesn't have to work except that long walk to the mailbox to pick up another Government check. And, they still get to vote for more free stuff! They pay little or no taxes and many of them suck the marrow out of ALL our government services. Many can't work due to mental or physical disabilities and I understand that. That's what Medicaid, food stamp programs, rental assistance and Social Security and/or State disability programs are designed for. That isn't what is happening now for many of the unemployed. They're gaming the system while those of us continue to work and pay taxes so they can continue to make a CAREER out of free Government "stimulus" programs.

 

[Ray B]

@CoElkHunter while what you say is substantially correct I don't know that things would be different in the governments policies if the vote was limited to producers. Clearly some of the farthest left wingers are not only producers but are quite rich. the problem with the "entitlements" is that they originated by people who had no perception of the decline in moral values that the programs incentivized. If the original goal of the programs was to provide a "safety net" it would have worked much better if there was no disincentives in it. the problem was that some people, for whatever reason were without funds to purchase basic necessities. So the most direct answer to the problem would have been to give them money. but to do so without disincentives- so basically every US citizen (no non-citizens) over 18 years of age would receive a monthly payment. the payment would be in amount that allowed survival but no frills. A husband would get that amount and the wife would get that amount. All of their kids would get the amount, prorated from 0 - 17. so to toss a number, say the monthly payment was $1,000 and this family had 3 kids ages 5, 7, 10. the prorated amount is $55 per year of age. Our family would receive So our family would receive $3,210 per month. These payments would go out to every person regardless of marital status or other income, based on the number in the household. How can the government afford to send all of this money out? Easy. there would be no Social Security, Welfare, Public/ subsidized housing, Food Stamps, Obamacare. Everyone would get their money in addition to whatever jobs and income they had and from those jobs they would pay income tax. If a 20% income tax rate was used when the parent in the above family earned $16,000 per month, he would be at net 0 govt pmt/tax. But the real savings is that the workforce would be multiplied due to the significant increase in labor that was previously used administering all of those government programs which now do not exist.

I do not see any way that this plan could be implemented at this point because there are too many bureaucrats that would lose their position and employment. It's just too bad that when FDR started all of the dogooder stuff he didn't realize how it and its disincentives would change things.

 

[sgt_zim]

I don't have a problem with any citizen having a vote- as long as he/she isn't dead, only gets one vote and is mentally competent to not sign the ballot and hand it over to a harvester to complete and submit. this system would work as long as the founding father's aspirations were met- that is, the electorate was educated, and the government was limited to having a balanced budget.

The problem with poor people voting in the United States is that they are people who have poor impulse control, poor decision-making skills, low IQ, and very little education. Psychologically, most of them are stuck at about 15 or 16 years old. That kind of person has no business at all deciding how and who should be running the government.

There is a distinction between poverty and being broke, which I was about 15 years ago. Being poor is a state of mind; whereas a business failure just leads to the next opportunity.

 

[Newboomer]

The problem with poor people voting in the United States is that they are people who have poor impulse control, poor decision-making skills, low IQ, and very little education. Psychologically, most of them are stuck at about 15 or 16 years old. That kind of person has no business at all deciding how and who should be running the government.

There is a distinction between poverty and being broke, which I was about 15 years ago. Being poor is a state of mind; whereas a business failure just leads to the next opportunity.

Which is just what the commucrats want, illiterates who they can influence and control and who will contine to vote for them to maintain their place at the public trough.

 

[sgt_zim]

@CoElkHunter while what you say is substantially correct I don't know that things would be different in the governments policies if the vote was limited to producers. Clearly some of the farthest left wingers are not only producers but are quite rich. the problem with the "entitlements" is that they originated by people who had no perception of the decline in moral values that the programs incentivized. If the original goal of the programs was to provide a "safety net" it would have worked much better if there was no disincentives in it. the problem was that some people, for whatever reason were without funds to purchase basic necessities. So the most direct answer to the problem would have been to give them money. but to do so without disincentives- so basically every US citizen (no non-citizens) over 18 years of age would receive a monthly payment. the payment would be in amount that allowed survival but no frills. A husband would get that amount and the wife would get that amount. All of their kids would get the amount, prorated from 0 - 17. so to toss a number, say the monthly payment was $1,000 and this family had 3 kids ages 5, 7, 10. the prorated amount is $55 per year of age. Our family would receive So our family would receive $3,210 per month. These payments would go out to every person regardless of marital status or other income, based on the number in the household. How can the government afford to send all of this money out? Easy. there would be no Social Security, Welfare, Public/ subsidized housing, Food Stamps, Obamacare. Everyone would get their money in addition to whatever jobs and income they had and from those jobs they would pay income tax. If a 20% income tax rate was used when the parent in the above family earned $16,000 per month, he would be at net 0 govt pmt/tax. But the real savings is that the workforce would be multiplied due to the significant increase in labor that was previously used administering all of those government programs which now do not exist.

I do not see any way that this plan could be implemented at this point because there are too many bureaucrats that would lose their position and employment. It's just too bad that when FDR started all of the dogooder stuff he didn't realize how it and its disincentives would change things.

 

[CoElkHunter]

@CoElkHunter while what you say is substantially correct I don't know that things would be different in the governments policies if the vote was limited to producers. Clearly some of the farthest left wingers are not only producers but are quite rich. the problem with the "entitlements" is that they originated by people who had no perception of the decline in moral values that the programs incentivized. If the original goal of the programs was to provide a "safety net" it would have worked much better if there was no disincentives in it. the problem was that some people, for whatever reason were without funds to purchase basic necessities. So the most direct answer to the problem would have been to give them money. but to do so without disincentives- so basically every US citizen (no non-citizens) over 18 years of age would receive a monthly payment. the payment would be in amount that allowed survival but no frills. A husband would get that amount and the wife would get that amount. All of their kids would get the amount, prorated from 0 - 17. so to toss a number, say the monthly payment was $1,000 and this family had 3 kids ages 5, 7, 10. the prorated amount is $55 per year of age. Our family would receive So our family would receive $3,210 per month. These payments would go out to every person regardless of marital status or other income, based on the number in the household. How can the government afford to send all of this money out? Easy. there would be no Social Security, Welfare, Public/ subsidized housing, Food Stamps, Obamacare. Everyone would get their money in addition to whatever jobs and income they had and from those jobs they would pay income tax. If a 20% income tax rate was used when the parent in the above family earned $16,000 per month, he would be at net 0 govt pmt/tax. But the real savings is that the workforce would be multiplied due to the significant increase in labor that was previously used administering all of those government programs which now do not exist.

I do not see any way that this plan could be implemented at this point because there are too many bureaucrats that would lose their position and employment. It's just too bad that when FDR started all of the dogooder stuff he didn't realize how it and its disincentives would change things.

Ray B,
I don’t disagree with the plan you have theorized. Maybe a basic income WITH work as a requirement and elimination of most safety net type programs would be an option? I believe a basic income was tried recently in Sweden(?) without a work requirement and it didn’t work. The lazy slugs took the income and still didn’t get a job? Free is for me! Ha! Ha!

 

[CoElkHunter]

Which is just what the commucrats want, illiterates who they can influence and control and who will contine to vote for them to maintain their place at the public trough.

Yep! Marxism at it’s best!