The shocking cost of ‘free’ water in detroit

[futurecurrents]

Originally Posted by k p View Post
but it seems the republicans are for the rich, and the democrats for the poor. The democrats want more government and government jobs, and the republicans want less government, and hence save more money for themselves.

What a load of complete and total horseshit. Congratulations on identifying yourself to be a clueless imbecile on your first post in the P+R forums.

I see why you are so fucked up now. You don't know the most basic general truths.

 

[futurecurrents]

And you have no idea what the airspeed velocity of an african swallow is. So what? Both are irrelevant, you just don't want to accept it.

So I can include you as also being clueless as to the scale of welfare waste. No surprise there.

 

[Ricter]

LOL

Thanks for the laugh. What do you have, like fifty people on ignore by now?

Funny shit.

A while back he said it was "just shy of 300".

 

[futurecurrents]

I'm a curmudgeon because I disagree with the statement that "Democrats are for the poor and Republicans for the rich"?

If he had stated the opposite, I would have said it was bullshit as well, AND you would have agreed. That would have made us both curmudgeons, according to you.

k_p, get in good with Rictard as your views and his will likely align politically (and be ridiculed in unison). Other suggestions for people who you might fit well with:

Start going off on how people who are skeptical of global warming are idiots, and you can sign up with Futurecurrents. Tell us you are gay and that'll be a plus to him. Ricter's a limo democrat - you know, the ones that claim they support things for the people, but in reality support big government so it will "help" the people and he doesn't have to worry about it. Status quo is important to Ricter, so make sure you don't advocate changing things. But if you need support in time of trouble, Ricter will support you no matter what you do -because he always backs his team regardless of what they do right/wrong.

Then you need to brush up on your reading - sites like Salon, Slate, HuffPo, etc. those will get you in good with dbphoenix. If you read other sites, you're out of luck as he won't be tuned in, so stay true.

Study up on stupid slapstick and low intelligence humor and you'll get in great with Bigarrow. He's not too sharp, but he doesn't know it. And if you just hee-haw when he responds, you'll be his best friend.

I think that pretty much sums it up. There might be one or two folks left that share similarly ignorant views as you and your friends, but the rest of us here are going to laugh at you.

This is just a public service post to give you the lay of the land.

And never forget that singed toe is a just slightly less deranged and nasty version of the other right wing nut jobs.

He still repeats that I am gay although I have told him several times that I am not.

So he is either very forgetful or a purposeful liar or both.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I've been reading these posts over the past few weeks in this politics and religion forum with great interest, and although I should be spending more time figuring out how to make money from this trading business, I do want to share one view point.

I'm not exactly up to speed on the whole republican/democrat viewpoints, but it seems the republicans are for the rich, and the democrats for the poor. The democrats want more government and government jobs, and the republicans want less government, and hence save more money for themselves.

So going forward with this view, I do wonder how the rich think they got rich, or better yet, how they plan to stay rich. Once the common people figure out how much they are getting screwed at the expense of the people at the top, I would hate to be the rich guy living in the big mansion. I'm of course not sure if the poor people can ever organize productively and take a stand, but when it gets ugly, there is strength in numbers, and the 1% certainly don't have numbers on their side.

I just think that the rich, in order to stay rich, should be nicer to the people who do all the hard work and allow them to have what they have. People these days are finding it hard to obtain the necessities of life, as pointed out by this article on water, and when people can't get at least that, I think natural human instincts of revenge and hate take over.

So I think that if I was rich, it would be in my best interest to give a little bit back, because you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you!

Your post generated the replies it did because it was both stunning misinformed and accepted at face value obviously erroneous stereotypes.

You seem to blithely assume that the rich are skating by, getting fat off everyone else. In truth, they provide the lion's share of federal tax revenues. The top 10% of income earners generate 70% of income tax revenues. The top 25% fully 87%. The bottom 50% reach deep and kick in 2.25%. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

You seem ignorant of the fact that democrats are far more dependent on fat cat donors than republicans. Why do you think King Obama spends so much time at fund raisers in LA and NYC? He's not out there asking for $25 contributions, I can promise you that.

The question that this thread addressed was far more nuanced than your "democrats good, republicans bad" summary. It is the question of which policies actually help the poor, versus which ones tend to perpetuate lives of poverty and dysfunction. After all, we've had a so-called War on Poverty for 50 years now, with literally trillions of dollars thrown at liberal solutions. All we see is increasing levels of dependency and social dysfuntion. Fro some reason, behaviors that liberals would never condone in their own families is considered beyond criticism when practiced by minorities.

So is it really beastly to ask if maybe there is a better approach?

 

[Tsing Tao]

Originally Posted by k p View Post
but it seems the republicans are for the rich, and the democrats for the poor. The democrats want more government and government jobs, and the republicans want less government, and hence save more money for themselves.



I see why you are so fucked up now. You don't know the most basic general truths.

And I see why you're so fucked up. You believe everything you hear on MSNBC.

 

[Tsing Tao]

So I can include you as also being clueless as to the scale of welfare waste. No surprise there.

I already answered your query on this. Reading comprehension FTW!

 

[Tsing Tao]

And never forget that singed toe is a just slightly less deranged and nasty version of the other right wing nut jobs.

He still repeats that I am gay although I have told him several times that I am not.

So he is either very forgetful or a purposeful liar or both.

You may not consider yourself gay, but all those "experiments" you had with your brother make it debatable.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Your post generated the replies it did because it was both stunning misinformed and accepted at face value obviously erroneous stereotypes.

You seem to blithely assume that the rich are skating by, getting fat off everyone else. In truth, they provide the lion's share of federal tax revenues. The top 10% of income earners generate 70% of income tax revenues. The top 25% fully 87%. The bottom 50% reach deep and kick in 2.25%. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

You seem ignorant of the fact that democrats are far more dependent on fat cat donors than republicans. Why do you think King Obama spends so much time at fund raisers in LA and NYC? He's not out there asking for $25 contributions, I can promise you that.

The question that this thread addressed was far more nuanced than your "democrats good, republicans bad" summary. It is the question of which policies actually help the poor, versus which ones tend to perpetuate lives of poverty and dysfunction. After all, we've had a so-called War on Poverty for 50 years now, with literally trillions of dollars thrown at liberal solutions. All we see is increasing levels of dependency and social dysfuntion. Fro some reason, behaviors that liberals would never condone in their own families is considered beyond criticism when practiced by minorities.

So is it really beastly to ask if maybe there is a better approach?

You're being baited, AAA.

 

[futurecurrents]

Your post generated the replies it did because it was both stunning misinformed and accepted at face value obviously erroneous stereotypes.

You seem to blithely assume that the rich are skating by, getting fat off everyone else. In truth, they provide the lion's share of federal tax revenues. The top 10% of income earners generate 70% of income tax revenues. The top 25% fully 87%. The bottom 50% reach deep and kick in 2.25%. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

You seem ignorant of the fact that democrats are far more dependent on fat cat donors than republicans. Why do you think King Obama spends so much time at fund raisers in LA and NYC? He's not out there asking for $25 contributions, I can promise you that.

The question that this thread addressed was far more nuanced than your "democrats good, republicans bad" summary. It is the question of which policies actually help the poor, versus which ones tend to perpetuate lives of poverty and dysfunction. After all, we've had a so-called War on Poverty for 50 years now, with literally trillions of dollars thrown at liberal solutions. All we see is increasing levels of dependency and social dysfuntion. Fro some reason, behaviors that liberals would never condone in their own families is considered beyond criticism when practiced by minorities.

So is it really beastly to ask if maybe there is a better approach?

So how much of the budget is wasted in the social safety net?

All this screaming about the "dependents" and yet no clue as to how much waste.

Amazing. One would think that the hysterical righties would at least have some general idea.

Do you even know how much of the budget goes toward the social safety net excluding SS Medicare medicaide?