The Pot Party!

[Jim Craik]

Yes Doug, you called it, He answered no questions.

He was unable to post anything I said that was not true.

Additionally after he spoke of the "massive Liberal debt", I showed him how it is almost all Reagan/Bush, he then made no comment at all.

I'm still waiting for his thoughts on somone taking unemployment funds when they do not need them.

I supect we will be waiting a long time.

 

[Damian]

Jim I'm not defending anyone in particular but I have to ask; are you saying that someone that pays into the system shouldn't benefit from it? What does his financial situation have anything to do with it? If you pay in than you are owed period; REGARDLESS of ones financial situation. I may be wrong but I don't think that anyone on here likes to pay for things that they never receive.

 

[Jim Craik]

Damian,

No, I'm definatly not saying that. I feel that safety net programs like this, are one of the things that make America great.

The problem I have is with hypocracy. Al who always attacks anyone who makes use of a Govenment safety net, calling them many many derogatory names. It turns out that he took advantage of unemployment insurance and then admited here in the fourm that he did not need he money.

I have absolutly no problem with anyone including Al using a Govenment program that they qualify for, that is why we have them.

My problem is with Al then attacking with stong words others who do the same.

Damian, thanks for the question.

 

[Damian]

O.K. I understand and I'm sorry for misunderstanding you.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Unemployment like social security is paid for through employment and paid out according to the quarters worked. It's not an entitlement program. Get over it, you're wrong.

 

[Jeff Young]

Actually most of them seem to be saying they want decent jobs, etc.

You lose on that last sentence. Precisely what you did. You were physically able to work and instead of getting off your butt and hoofing it over to the temp agency or McDonalds or a construction company, you accepted a government benefit. That's fine. I'm ok with that. You were entitled to it.

Just like someone who has paid taxes (sales, income, whatever) is entitled to AFDC or other benefits if they hit a hard spell.

Absolutely amazing that someone who benefitted from the social safety net would have such rancor for those who had to do the same.

And what do you honestly think of this behavior? I wasn't labeling, just what I saw on the news. The homeless have better hygiene than these people. Drugs, sex, defecating on the street. I listened to interviews, no one has a clue. But they all want to take from people that have money and have it given to them. We already have that, it's called welfare. Please don't rant to me about welfare, people that are physically unable to work should get it, the rest should get off their butts and do something.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Yes Doug, you called it, He answered no questions.

He was unable to post anything I said that was not true.

Additionally after he spoke of the "massive Liberal debt", I showed him how it is almost all Reagan/Bush, he then made no comment at all.

I'm still waiting for his thoughts on somone taking unemployment funds when they do not need them.

I supect we will be waiting a long time.

I've said Congress spends the money four times now. If that's not an answer, think about it for a moment before you accuse me of not responding.



You will never tell your "lazy slave" theory to an AA because it will show you to be what you are, and you will lose another friend. AND, ITS NOT TRUE.

Do you get it yet??

If you've paid into the system, and a self employed person pays far more than an employee, you have a right to that benefit.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Fortunately, Jim, I can't see anything LB posts, but I think we know the answer to that question :idea: !

Standard slash and run tactics....make an unsupportable assertion without adding IMHO ( not that hard at all ) and then when challenged, try to sidestep the issue with additional unsupportable assertions.

Keep in mind, I can't see any of LB's posts, but Jim, and be truthful....did I hit the nail on the head or am I all wet?

Cheers, Doug!!

Do you perchance wear white leather shoes?

 

[Jim Craik]

I've said Congress spends the money four times now. If that's not an answer, think about it for a moment before you accuse me of not responding.



You will never tell your "lazy slave" theory to an AA because it will show you to be what you are, and you will lose another friend. AND, ITS NOT TRUE.

Do you get it yet??

If you've paid into the system, and a self employed person pays far more than an employee, you have a right to that benefit.

So by your thinking, if Reagan and Bush had nothing to do with their incredible rise the the debt, then of course you will then say that Obama has nothing to do with the current debt. You can't have it both ways!

Bobby, why do you think that certain ethic groups statistically speaking, continually under perform in both education and economically?

Of course Al is in titled to earned benefits, but to then attack others for the same thing is hypocrisy, but we already knew that didn't we.

 

[Bob Fechter]

So by your thinking, if Reagan and Bush had nothing to do with their incredible rise the the debt, then of course you will then say that Obama has nothing to do with the current debt. You can't have it both ways!

Bobby, why do you think that certain ethic groups statistically speaking, continually under perform in both education and economically?

Of course Al is in titled to earned benefits, but to then attack others for the same thing is hypocrisy, but we already knew that didn't we.

Reagan was always saddled with a Democrat Congress. Bush was a fool. Reagan got tricked into a tax increase deal. For every new dollar of taxes there would be four dollars in spending cuts. Of course the Dems were as good as their word. the increase happened but the cuts never did, never will. Never again.

I'm not the person to talk to about minorities. Take your theories to real minority members and find out what they think instead of what you think.

I am not privy to that discussion. But I will say that you must do any job you can in that position, and if you are a good employee, you will rise. If you stay on unemployment for a long time, you are destroying your own future.

 

[Jim Craik]

Bobby, perhaps you should read this again.

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD width=19></TD><TD class=nrml>US National Debt Graph: What They Never Tell You



</TD><TD width=19></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- center ROW 2, Type=Text ================= --><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><!-- C-Row TN --><TD width=19></TD><TD class=nrml>
Debt Compared to National Income
Reagan got elected by telling the country the debt was "out of control." Compared to national income, it was the lowest in 50 years. He probably didn't know. But his supply-side economists did. They lied to America.
In 1981 Reagan's supply siders wrote the tax cuts for the rich and his budgets. The Senate was Republican, and Reagan got the Southern Dems in the House to vote for him. All Republicans and a few Dems voted for the budget. The national debt had its worst year since 1945. The next year it got worse, and for 20 out of 20 years, the supply siders raised the debt relative to our ability to pay.

Only under Clinton did the debt go down.

Republicans are responsible for most, all our debt!


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

The debt went down under Clinton because of a Republican controlled Congress and Senate for the last 6 years of his presidency. And the last two years od Bush's presidency was a Democrat controlled Congress and Senate, two big spending years. You conveniently forget this, we went over this before.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Bobby, perhaps you should read this again.

Numbers don't lie, but liars use numbers, Jim. Break yourself out of this Liberal miasma that you find yourself in.

Reagan forced the Soviet Union into bankruptcy, B.O. is forcing the USA into bankruptcy as we type.

There is hope for you, Jimbo, go towards the light.

 

[Mark]

And what do you honestly think of this behavior? I wasn't labeling, just what I saw on the news. Please don't rant to me about welfare, people that are physically unable to work should get it, the rest should get off their butts and do something.

I agree with you here Al re Welfare. What I mean regarding labels, is kind of reinforced by your saying that you saw it on 'the news'. We should all forget what we see on 'the news'. News my arse. None of it isunbiased and all of it is dramatized. The media support the 'party' system. IMO, it is the party system of politics that is flawed. I have said that before, so my opinions for what they are worth are well known.

I thought we had it bad here, Labour Vs. Conservatives blah blah blah. But you guys are on a whole different level of bullshit. I don't mean that offensively, but stop the bickering and find the mutual ground. Then you could begin to fix it. Same applies here in the UK, IMO

 

[Jim Craik]

Numbers don't lie, but liars use numbers, Jim. Break yourself out of this Liberal miasma that you find yourself in.

Reagan forced the Soviet Union into bankruptcy, B.O. is forcing the USA into bankruptcy as we type.

There is hope for you, Jimbo, go towards the light.

Bobby,

Look at that chart again, both Reagan and Bush2 PUSHED THROUGH big tax cuts, yet greatly increased spending!

Reagan, huge, usless military sepending (the USSR was done by that ime) in part on a large usless Navy and Bush on two usless wars!

Bobby, when you cut taxes and increase spending the debt line turns red and goes up!

Both of them said that this would help the economy, they lied.

 

[domtoni]

We should use the whole Z Facts web page for this discussion. Note the Congressional vs Regean budget comparisons. Almost a direct copy of each other.

U.S. National Debt Graph + Amazing YouTube Story of the Debt

 

[Jim Craik]

Domtoni,

I do not know if you are old enough to rember when Reagan was first elected, but I do.

No matter what the history impared may tell you, Reagan was a very strong force. He was able to convince all the Repuiblicans and a few Demorcats that cutting taxes for the wealthy would "trickle down" to the middle class, this was all done with the rather perswasive force of Reagans personality. We all know that this led to *****HUGE DEFICITS*****.

The consevatives here will try and tell us that this was the liberal congress that did this but it was Reagan.

Bush2 came in and did the same thing, FORCED through tax cuts, started two wars with lies, had no way to pay for them. The result *****ECONOMIC RUIN******

The history impared may try and say this was congress, but we all know different!

 

[domtoni]

Well, I remember Regean. The Regean deficits was only (in 1988) $150Billion. Small by today's standards. Who said that people were not doing well in the 1980s, everyone I know who today complains the trickle down theory didn't work. And people were better off under Bush2.

Now, Bush 2 took 8 years to add $4T to the deficit (and the bulk came with the Democratic congress in 2007). Our old pal BHO ran up almost $5 trillion since he has been in office and the economy is worse now than it has since the 1930s. Obama knows how to spend money, and don't forget he turned down help to cut corruption from IBM, Dell et el.

 

[Jim Craik]

Domtoni,

I bought my first house in 1982 during Reagans trickle down exparement, I paid 17% interst!!!!

You have the nerve to say:

"AND PEOPLE ARE BETTER OFF UNDER BUSH2"

Domtoni, I can't believe you would say such a rediculous thing, your credibility has suffered greatly!

 

[Mark]

Were people better off in the eighties? I remember most houses in the area in which I grew up had one car per family. Also not many people I knew of had foreign holidays either. If you did, you were considered 'wealthy'.

Are these examples a credible bench-mark of wealth?