Breaking Point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jfc, you assholes are so purposely deceitful. You damn well know the poor pay taxes: excise, property, payroll, and sales taxes.


Again, how do you wring blood out of a stone?

Don't give me that poor crap. Close to half the country is not contributing to the revenue base and that's economically unsustainable. Stop pleading poor at every discussion on just how far out of whack the numbers have become.

Only when you stop pleading poor at the 1% who own 34% of the wealth in this country. If only those allegedly benevolent business owners actually paid some of their massive earnings to their workers, perhaps those workers could be more economically sustainable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jfc, you assholes are so purposely deceitful. You damn well know the poor pay taxes: excise, property, payroll, and sales taxes.


Again, how do you wring blood out of a stone?

Don't give me that poor crap. Close to half the country is not contributing to the revenue base and that's economically unsustainable. Stop pleading poor at every discussion on just how far out of whack the numbers have become.

+ 1 We are now in a spot where half the people are "too poor" to contribute to the federal revenue base and liberals don't see a problem with that? Sorry, but if a poor person can afford to buy a $200 pair of sneakers, he can pay $100 to the government instead and "sacrifice" with a $100 pair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jfc, you assholes are so purposely deceitful. You damn well know the poor pay taxes: excise, property, payroll, and sales taxes.


Again, how do you wring blood out of a stone?

Don't give me that poor crap. Close to half the country is not contributing to the revenue base and that's economically unsustainable. Stop pleading poor at every discussion on just how far out of whack the numbers have become.

Only when you stop pleading poor at the 1% who own 34% of the wealth in this country. If only those allegedly benevolent business owners actually paid some of their massive earnings to their workers, perhaps those workers could be more economically sustainable.

They own 34% of the country because you keep doing stupid shit like creating stacks of regulation in the name of "fairness". The more you do, the more "unfair" things get. Since you're economically illiterate, how about you step back, donkey, and let someone who knows WTF they're doing unscrew what you've screwed up royally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+ 1 We are now in a spot where half the people are "too poor" to contribute to the federal revenue base and liberals don't see a problem with that? Sorry, but if a poor person can afford to buy a $200 pair of sneakers, he can pay $100 to the government instead and "sacrifice" with a $100 pair.


They "rent" rims for cars. Can you f'n believe that? I mean it's insane.

[Anonymous]

So Obamaphones were meant for the poor in an emergency...

Meanwhile, they get a free phone and 250 minutes a month. Who has 250 minutes worth of emergencies a month?

It's like dialing for dollars for TracFone and other companies involved in that boondoggle called "lifeline".... but but but hate big telecom.

It's insanity.


250 – Number of free minutes offered to program participants in most states. (California, which so often leads the way in so many things, now offers Obama Phone customers unlimited talk and texts).

1999 – The year the Lifeline Assistance program began offering subsidies on home phones.

2008 – The year Tracfone handed out the first free government cell phone in Tennessee.

200,000 – The population of Puerto Rico is approximately 4,000,000, but in 2012 the Federal Communications Commission estimated that 200,000 of Puerto Ricans had fraudulent Obama Phone accounts.

10,000,000 – The number of households on Food Stamps that qualify for an Obama Phone but do not yet have one.

13,000,000 – Current estimated number of free cell phones subscribers.

214,000,000 – The number of dollars the FCC says it saved by cracking down on Obama Phone fraud, waste and abuse in 2012

400,000,000 – The number of dollars the FCC says it saved in 2013.

1,384,000,000 – Estimated number of Obama Phone dollars to be saved in 2014 if FCC effort to curb fraud, waste and abuse is achieved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Obamaphones were meant for the poor in an emergency...

Meanwhile, they get a free phone and 250 minutes a month. Who has 250 minutes worth of emergencies a month?

It's like dialing for dollars for TracFone and other companies involved in that boondoggle called "lifeline".... but but but hate big telecom.

It's insanity.


250 – Number of free minutes offered to program participants in most states. (California, which so often leads the way in so many things, now offers Obama Phone customers unlimited talk and texts).

1999 – The year the Lifeline Assistance program began offering subsidies on home phones.

2008 – The year Tracfone handed out the first free government cell phone in Tennessee.

200,000 – The population of Puerto Rico is approximately 4,000,000, but in 2012 the Federal Communications Commission estimated that 200,000 of Puerto Ricans had fraudulent Obama Phone accounts.

10,000,000 – The number of households on Food Stamps that qualify for an Obama Phone but do not yet have one.

13,000,000 – Current estimated number of free cell phones subscribers.

214,000,000 – The number of dollars the FCC says it saved by cracking down on Obama Phone fraud, waste and abuse in 2012

400,000,000 – The number of dollars the FCC says it saved in 2013.

1,384,000,000 – Estimated number of Obama Phone dollars to be saved in 2014 if FCC effort to curb fraud, waste and abuse is achieved.

Please cite reliable sources for this.

[Anonymous]

https://www.obamaphone.com/obama-phone-numbers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jfc, you assholes are so purposely deceitful. You damn well know the poor pay taxes: excise, property, payroll, and sales taxes.


Again, how do you wring blood out of a stone?

Don't give me that poor crap. Close to half the country is not contributing to the revenue base and that's economically unsustainable. Stop pleading poor at every discussion on just how far out of whack the numbers have become.

+ 1 We are now in a spot where half the people are "too poor" to contribute to the federal revenue base and liberals don't see a problem with that? Sorry, but if a poor person can afford to buy a $200 pair of sneakers, he can pay $100 to the government instead and "sacrifice" with a $100 pair.

Right, the "poors" should be REALLY suffering. They deserve that.

You probably think "trickle down" works too.

[Anonymous]

It's has nothing to do with "deserving". It's time the able bodied pick themselves up.

Can't subsidize them forever, even though you would like that to happen.

Intergenerational welfare has to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as GNP continues to grow to 4% and beyond, and the stock market passes 25,000, his popularity will grow. In the end a good economy benefits everyone. Most people outside of the coasts have no idea what net neutrality is, and will not be effected by it. On the other hand, if they have good jobs and growing wages, they will have no desire to change the course.

Trump hasn't yet hit that mark. And your optimism about how you think that will be some kind of great milestone achievement that we haven't seen in decades and will be a massive boom time is out of touch with reality. Conservatives have been selling the "Obama's economy was horrible, less than 1% growth" myth and it's complete bullsh*t. We had 4% growth several times over the last couple of years, and yes, under Obama. In fact we hit 5.3% GDP growth 3Q2014. Yet oddly none of you conservatives seem to remember that, instead you get lies about how "horrible" things were under Obama. Heck, even the Koch brothers more than doubled their wealth under Obama. Obviously couldn't have been all that bad. But sadly conservative hate is so bad and so strong that you all feel compelled to lie about it, you just can't help yourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's has nothing to do with "deserving". It's time the able bodied pick themselves up.

Can't subsidize them forever, even though you would like that to happen.

Intergenerational welfare has to stop.

Then why are you bitching about shoes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jfc, you assholes are so purposely deceitful. You damn well know the poor pay taxes: excise, property, payroll, and sales taxes.


Again, how do you wring blood out of a stone?

Don't give me that poor crap. Close to half the country is not contributing to the revenue base and that's economically unsustainable. Stop pleading poor at every discussion on just how far out of whack the numbers have become.

+ 1 We are now in a spot where half the people are "too poor" to contribute to the federal revenue base and liberals don't see a problem with that? Sorry, but if a poor person can afford to buy a $200 pair of sneakers, he can pay $100 to the government instead and "sacrifice" with a $100 pair.

Right, the "poors" should be REALLY suffering. They deserve that.

You probably think "trickle down" works too.

WTF? Having to "make do" with a $100 pair of sneakers is suffering? How awful we are, expecting poor people to go without a $200 pair. Heartless!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's has nothing to do with "deserving". It's time the able bodied pick themselves up.

Can't subsidize them forever, even though you would like that to happen.

Intergenerational welfare has to stop.

Then why are you bitching about shoes?

That was ME talking about poor people wasting money on $200 shoes....not the PP you're replying to. Why do liberals always assume they are talking to ONE conservative? Can't you tell the difference in writing style and content? Jeez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.obamaphone.com/obama-phone-numbers

Good lord PP, you are one dumb and special itch. That website you provided is not legit. Heck you yourself could have made that crap up. Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's has nothing to do with "deserving". It's time the able bodied pick themselves up.

Can't subsidize them forever, even though you would like that to happen.

Intergenerational welfare has to stop.

Then why are you bitching about shoes?

That was ME talking about poor people wasting money on $200 shoes....not the PP you're replying to. Why do liberals always assume they are talking to ONE conservative? Can't you tell the difference in writing style and content? Jeez.

You mean there is more than one f-ing idiot dotard?

You dotards all want to punish people for their sins - being poor, getting pregnant, etc.