Obama sets a food stamp record...AGAIN.

[QUOTE=Nanners]you need this explained??

i pay taxes. then, the us government decides to give massive tax breaks to your industry... is it really too hard for you to connect the dots on that one?

the only difference between a tax break and a subsidy is the letters used in the word. bottom line, they are both free (taxpayer) money from the government. if you want to argue semantics, you should talk to primetime or something.[/QUOTE]

You also receive tax breaks like standard deduction, personal exemption and etc.

If you went to school you received a tax deduction in tuition and possibly tuition interest. If you own a home you receive a deduction in property taxes and mortgage interest. Theres a bunch more deductions the govt gives to subsidize peoples lifestyles that cause innefficiencies in the marketplace ie tuition costs, home values etc. B

Which deductions and credits are you speaking of? There are many deductions the govt gives which i dont agree with either take nol, research and devolpment, hiring credits.

As for rmwg just because wastless money was spent in iraq doesnt mske welfare spending ok. I hope you can see the fallacy in this argumen.

[QUOTE=ALBballer]As for rmwg just because wastless money was spent in iraq doesnt mske welfare spending ok. I hope you can see the fallacy in this argumen.[/QUOTE]
See the fallacy? I can barely even read it...

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]See the fallacy? I can barely even read it...[/QUOTE]

Stop trying to divert the attention from my point to some spelling/grammar mistakes. Im typing from my phone..

Kthanxbi

[QUOTE=ALBballer]Stop trying to divert the attention from my point to some spelling/grammar mistakes. Im typing from my phone..

Kthanxbi[/QUOTE]
It's not much of a point. I've already said why I support the food stamp program. I believe in feeding the hungry. I also pointed out the fact that it's a small part of the budget. Cutting ti will still leave us with massive deficits. You don't agree? Fine. But you haven't made much of a point.

"kthanxbi"

So by feeding more people, Obama's an asshole? lol

It's amazing at the beatings conservatives take, and yet they still comeback for more. :lol

Dems/GOP love tossing around the word sustainability.. what is sustainable about this government? We can't even fund it.. we have to go into debt to pay our obligations.

To me it's clear, we have to give the power back to the states. We need more variation in this country, we can't have 1 central government ruling all of us to this degree. It just doesn't work.

[QUOTE=joe]Dems/GOP love tossing around the word sustainability.. what is sustainable about this government? We can't even fund it.. we have to go into debt to pay our obligations.

To me it's clear, we have to give the power back to the states. We need more variation in this country, we can't have 1 central government ruling all of us to this degree. It just doesn't work.[/QUOTE]

Isn't America already one of the most decentralized states on the planet??? When competing against Europe, China, India, etc. then pulling in the same direction to maximize outcomes makes sense to some degree.

As for sustainability, what is sustainable about any American governance system if the standard of American living is beyond normal means???

[QUOTE=joe]Dems/GOP love tossing around the word sustainability.. what is sustainable about this government? We can't even fund it.. we have to go into debt to pay our obligations.

To me it's clear, we have to give the power back to the states. We need more variation in this country, we can't have 1 central government ruling all of us to this degree. It just doesn't work.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I want thinks like gay marriage approved for ALL the states. Same for pot use even though I'm not a smoker myself. There are somethings I want states to be forced to comply with. Sometimes you have to drag people along. I'm not interested in waiting for the oldies to die out so that gay americans can finally be allowed to act like adults and get married if they want too. Nobody is going to reverse my mind on that. I'm very against banning things. When you have "the war on" you're usually setting yourself up for failure.

The War on poverty?

-Failure

The War on drugs?

-Failure

The War on terror?

-Failure

At the same time, that doesn't mean that I think we should destroy welfare, but reforms need to take place. The War on Terror is KILLING PEOPLE. It's killing our people, and non americans. The War on Drugs is putting a large number of people in prison.

Welfare? Yeah, it comes at a cost to americans also. But at the end of the day, it's putting food in people's mouth. And that's probably why even a guy like Ron Paul talks about The War on Drugs and The War on Terror more than he does welfare. Or at least, that is what I'm seeing. He and everyone else knows that the last two kill and throw people in prison needlessly.

So, I'm sorry... But I'm not wanting to wait for states to decide on things like pot because people are needlessly getting thrown in jail. Thousands of people. That is not something to be taken lightly, or something that we should just allow states to make up their mind on because there will be states in which it might not be made legal. Therefore, people will continue to get arrested and thrown in jail.

i actually tied to get a link card this year...

... they wouldnt give me one :coleman:


but they gave one of my friends one and he doesnt pay rent or anything. he lives with his mom :coleman:


maybe its times for a second try :D

[QUOTE=Hotlantadude81]Sorry, I want thinks like gay marriage approved for ALL the states. Same for pot use even though I'm not a smoker myself. There are somethings I want states to be forced to comply with. Sometimes you have to drag people along. I'm not interested in waiting for the oldies to die out so that gay americans can finally be allowed to act like adults and get married if they want too. Nobody is going to reverse my mind on that. I'm very against banning things. When you have "the war on" you're usually setting yourself up for failure.

The War on poverty?

-Failure

The War on drugs?

-Failure

The War on terror?

-Failure

At the same time, that doesn't mean that I think we should destroy welfare, but reforms need to take place. The War on Terror is KILLING PEOPLE. It's killing our people, and non americans. The War on Drugs is putting a large number of people in prison.

Welfare? Yeah, it comes at a cost to americans also. But at the end of the day, it's putting food in people's mouth. And that's probably why even a guy like Ron Paul talks about The War on Drugs and The War on Terror more than he does welfare. Or at least, that is what I'm seeing. He and everyone else knows that the last two kill and throw people in prison needlessly.

So, I'm sorry... But I'm not wanting to wait for states to decide on things like pot because people are needlessly getting thrown in jail. Thousands of people. That is not something to be taken lightly, or something that we should just allow states to make up their mind on because there will be states in which it might not be made legal. Therefore, people will continue to get arrested and thrown in jail.[/QUOTE]

Your argument is backwards and misaligned. It's the federal government waging all of those wars you listed. States rights would be a great way to fight AGAINST that sort of garbage.

Right now we have 1 state handing down trash laws for 50 other states to follow. Imagine if the state of Texas made the rules for the rest of us? And whatever Texas did, we all had to follow it? That's what we have right now coming from Washington DC.

Washington DC wants to invade Iraq based on lies? 50 states have no say in the matter. Washington DC wants to wage war on drugs? All the states fund it. Washington DC wants to have 35% income taxes, states have no recourse.

Forget the fact that I'm a libertarian, this just sounds like the most cockamamie idea I've ever heard. For a country that likes to call itself "free" and talk about personal liberties, what is so free and personal about 1 city handing down dictates on 50 states to this degree?

[QUOTE=MMM]Isn't America already one of the most decentralized states on the planet??? When competing against Europe, China, India, etc. then pulling in the same direction to maximize outcomes makes sense to some degree.

As for sustainability, what is sustainable about any American governance system if the standard of American living is beyond normal means???[/QUOTE]

The standard of American living was beyond normal means in the past because we actually produced those standards. The output of our economy justified that kind of standard. It wasn't based on debt and central banking like it is today.

We were extremely decentralized, not the case anymore. There's been an enormous centralization of power, mostly in the executive branch.

[QUOTE=joe]Your argument is backwards and misaligned. It's the federal government waging all of those wars you listed. States rights would be a great way to fight AGAINST that sort of garbage.

Right now we have 1 state handing down trash laws for 50 other states to follow. Imagine if the state of Texas made the rules for the rest of us? And whatever Texas did, we all had to follow it? That's what we have right now coming from Washington DC.

Washington DC wants to invade Iraq based on lies? 50 states have no say in the matter. Washington DC wants to wage war on drugs? All the states fund it. Washington DC wants to have 35% income taxes, states have no recourse.

Forget the fact that I'm a libertarian, this just sounds like the most cockamamie idea I've ever heard. For a country that likes to call itself "free" and talk about personal liberties, what is so free and personal about 1 city handing down dictates on 50 states to this degree?[/QUOTE]

i really dont know whether to laugh or cry.... first there is absurdity of the analogy that you base your post around, or the fact that you actually use the word "cockamamie".

"why let the state of washington dc decide all the rules"

is this real life?

[QUOTE=joe]The standard of American living was beyond normal means in the past because we actually produced those standards. The output of our economy justified that kind of standard. It wasn't based on debt and central banking like it is today.

We were extremely decentralized, not the case anymore. There's been an enormous centralization of power, mostly in the executive branch.[/QUOTE]

America remains one of the most decentralized nations in the world and the "leader of the free world" has less impact on decision making than his counterparts around the world.

Since you are an advocate of smaller government I just want to point out that centralizing certain aspects can actually result in reduction of redundancy and government.

As for sustainability It seems we have a different understanding of the word. As long as America (tiny minority) is addicted to consuming a large percentage of the worlds resources then sustainability will remain a large issue.

[QUOTE=Nanners]i really dont know whether to laugh or cry.... first there is absurdity of the analogy that you base your post around, or the fact that you actually use the word "cockamamie".

"why let the state of washington dc decide all the rules"

is this real life?[/QUOTE]

Not state as in being 1 of 50. One state as in, one government.

Having 1 central government controlling an area as large as the US is absurdity. The 50 states lack the means to resist federal law. What the federal government says, goes- and that is a dangerous proposition whether you realize it or not.

And look who you're talking to... I'm not exactly a lover of state governments either. They do retarded, yes, COCKAMAMIE things all the time. Want to talk about dumb things state governments do? I'll be laughing at them with you. But that's even more reason to want to have 50 individualized states, to give the people more recourse if 1 state wants to engage in buffoonery. It's a lot easier to move from New York to Pennsylvania than to leave the country entirely.