Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with you? It's not an extra cost and i don't get why you are measuring anyone's worth by granite countertops. Our HHI is 160k, i don't have granite countertops or the supposed status they endow, and I do not give a rat's patiootie if some poor fuck ends up with granite countertops if it means we don't end up with projects.

Get your head out of your bitter ass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a level of subsistence and then there are the extras. Poor must eat, we should feed them. Poor must have shelter, we should provide them shelter, poor need education. We should provide them shelter. I'll even go so far as they need healthcare, so we should provide that and childcare, within reason.

However, in an effort to make sure the poor don't feel different because they are poor, we provide them money and give them discretion how to spend it. Poor people need basics to subsist and education to succeed not cash in hand. I am sorry, but sending a check and saying spent it on what you want is stupid. And if you don't want make someone poor feel bad and you therefore give them granite countertops and gym memberships, they have no incentive to not be poor anymore.

I am making sweeping generalizations, but the point is I work hard and I don't have granite countertops, a gym membership and I'll paying for my kids education for years after they go to school or they will. I am tired of being told I need to take care of other people's kids too. I worked my way out of the poverty level and others can too. And yes, I got subsisitence help from the government and I am ok with that. I kept food on the table when mom worked after dad died. But granite countertops are ridiculous. Helping the poor has gotten so derailed.

Dude. It i snot like FFX County is going into a poor person's house and installing granite countertops. They are working in conjunction with several condo and apartment communities(that may or may not have granite in them) to provide subsidized housing sprinkled throughout the county to avoid the problems of crime and lack of upward mobility that come with grouping all lower income people in projects or ghettos.

Can you not see that? Can you not see how it is better to not segregate the poor? AS for your straw man of a 24 hour gym: 1. it will help prevent the obesity problem you decry and 2. It is not like a Lifetime membership--it is the free gym at the housing complex in most cases.

I don't give a rats patoot how you want to rationalize things. The citizens of FFX county should not be subsidizing granite countertops and 24 hour gym membership for (as I said earlier) "some" of the folks receiving government subsidized housing. I don't care if the condo builders threw the countertops in for free. It is ridiculous and we are paying for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a level of subsistence and then there are the extras. Poor must eat, we should feed them. Poor must have shelter, we should provide them shelter, poor need education. We should provide them shelter. I'll even go so far as they need healthcare, so we should provide that and childcare, within reason.

However, in an effort to make sure the poor don't feel different because they are poor, we provide them money and give them discretion how to spend it. Poor people need basics to subsist and education to succeed not cash in hand. I am sorry, but sending a check and saying spent it on what you want is stupid. And if you don't want make someone poor feel bad and you therefore give them granite countertops and gym memberships, they have no incentive to not be poor anymore.

I am making sweeping generalizations, but the point is I work hard and I don't have granite countertops, a gym membership and I'll paying for my kids education for years after they go to school or they will. I am tired of being told I need to take care of other people's kids too. I worked my way out of the poverty level and others can too. And yes, I got subsisitence help from the government and I am ok with that. I kept food on the table when mom worked after dad died. But granite countertops are ridiculous. Helping the poor has gotten so derailed.

Dude. It i snot like FFX County is going into a poor person's house and installing granite countertops. They are working in conjunction with several condo and apartment communities(that may or may not have granite in them) to provide subsidized housing sprinkled throughout the county to avoid the problems of crime and lack of upward mobility that come with grouping all lower income people in projects or ghettos.

Can you not see that? Can you not see how it is better to not segregate the poor? AS for your straw man of a 24 hour gym: 1. it will help prevent the obesity problem you decry and 2. It is not like a Lifetime membership--it is the free gym at the housing complex in most cases.

Anonymous wrote:There is a level of subsistence and then there are the extras. Poor must eat, we should feed them. Poor must have shelter, we should provide them shelter, poor need education. We should provide them shelter. I'll even go so far as they need healthcare, so we should provide that and childcare, within reason.

However, in an effort to make sure the poor don't feel different because they are poor, we provide them money and give them discretion how to spend it. Poor people need basics to subsist and education to succeed not cash in hand. I am sorry, but sending a check and saying spent it on what you want is stupid. And if you don't want make someone poor feel bad and you therefore give them granite countertops and gym memberships, they have no incentive to not be poor anymore.

I am making sweeping generalizations, but the point is I work hard and I don't have granite countertops, a gym membership and I'll paying for my kids education for years after they go to school or they will. I am tired of being told I need to take care of other people's kids too. I worked my way out of the poverty level and others can too. And yes, I got subsisitence help from the government and I am ok with that. I kept food on the table when mom worked after dad died. But granite countertops are ridiculous. Helping the poor has gotten so derailed.

Anonymous wrote:There is a level of subsistence and then there are the extras. Poor must eat, we should feed them. Poor must have shelter, we should provide them shelter, poor need education. We should provide them shelter. I'll even go so far as they need healthcare, so we should provide that and childcare, within reason.

However, in an effort to make sure the poor don't feel different because they are poor, we provide them money and give them discretion how to spend it. Poor people need basics to subsist and education to succeed not cash in hand. I am sorry, but sending a check and saying spent it on what you want is stupid. And if you don't want make someone poor feel bad and you therefore give them granite countertops and gym memberships, they have no incentive to not be poor anymore.

I am making sweeping generalizations, but the point is I work hard and I don't have granite countertops, a gym membership and I'll paying for my kids education for years after they go to school or they will. I am tired of being told I need to take care of other people's kids too. I worked my way out of the poverty level and others can too. And yes, I got subsisitence help from the government and I am ok with that. I kept food on the table when mom worked after dad died. But granite countertops are ridiculous. Helping the poor has gotten so derailed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the class warfare. I hate that there seems to be only two choice - tax one set of people more than they are taxed now or take food from people who need it. The problem is that we are all in this together, but neither party or candidate is acting like it.

Some people we don't need the entitlement need to put their hand back in their pockets and people who can afford to pay a little more need to do so if we want our children to inherit a workable economy.

Instead, we are being told by Obama only the "rich" need to suck it up and by Romney that no one should receive assistance. There is a middle ground here, but it means both sides need to compromise (I.e., give up something they want) and that isn't going to happen in the current polarized populous.

Well said. Where I think Obama is doing nearly irreparable harm is with the notion that the rich are not paying a "fair share". Instead he should say that Washington f'd up and desperately needs help from everyone. He needs to address spending and entitlements at the same time as he raises taxes on everyone. Of course most of the new taxes will come from the higher brackets as the do now. But I want to see an America where nearly everyone has skin in the game.

I think Romney should tell the middle class that they don't have skin in the game.

Seriously how tone deaf are you?

what are you talking about, Willis? 47 percent of filers pay no federal income tax. they need to start paying something, if only 50 Or 100 dollars. I didn't say anything about the middle class. Most people we would call middle class do pay income taxes. Probably around 25% of the total collected. That's skin, right?

So you want the poor to have more skin in the game?

Define poor. But in general, yes. I want the poor to have some skin in the game at the federal level. Many have none in right now. Here is an easy way. The biggest nutritional problem faced by our poor is obesity. Caused in large part by too much fast food and junk food. They can eat 50 fewer meals at McDonalds each year and send the money they would have spent to Washington. Please remember that most of our poor live in conditions that would put them firmly in the middle class in most of the rest of the world. Cars, TVs, heat and AC, indoor plumbing, a roof, potable water, refrigerator, smart phones, game consoles, Internet, guns, I could go on and on. Here in Fairfax County where I live, some people in government subsidized housing have granite countertops and 24 hour gym privileges. Whoever approved that should be placed in stocks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate the class warfare. I hate that there seems to be only two choice - tax one set of people more than they are taxed now or take food from people who need it. The problem is that we are all in this together, but neither party or candidate is acting like it.

Some people we don't need the entitlement need to put their hand back in their pockets and people who can afford to pay a little more need to do so if we want our children to inherit a workable economy.

Instead, we are being told by Obama only the "rich" need to suck it up and by Romney that no one should receive assistance. There is a middle ground here, but it means both sides need to compromise (I.e., give up something they want) and that isn't going to happen in the current polarized populous.

Well said. Where I think Obama is doing nearly irreparable harm is with the notion that the rich are not paying a "fair share". Instead he should say that Washington f'd up and desperately needs help from everyone. He needs to address spending and entitlements at the same time as he raises taxes on everyone. Of course most of the new taxes will come from the higher brackets as the do now. But I want to see an America where nearly everyone has skin in the game.

I think Romney should tell the middle class that they don't have skin in the game.

Seriously how tone deaf are you?

what are you talking about, Willis? 47 percent of filers pay no federal income tax. they need to start paying something, if only 50 Or 100 dollars. I didn't say anything about the middle class. Most people we would call middle class do pay income taxes. Probably around 25% of the total collected. That's skin, right?

So you want the poor to have more skin in the game?

Anonymous wrote:Better in the hand of wallstreet rather than the governmen can't make profits and steals from it to pay everything else

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you people wanting Obama to "address entitlements" are going to be the first to go batshit when Romney privatizes Social Security (putting your retirement in the hands of Wall Street)

And a less-regulated Wall Street at that.