I missed this today. A protest in London. They don't want 45 to be invited for a office visit.
Good. The next time they are getting their ass handed to them they can call Sweden for help. We'll keep our army home.
I missed this today. A protest in London. They don't want 45 to be invited for a office visit.
That did not look like trump in the pic.
Let's focus on #3 for a moment. "Every dollar spent on food stamps returns 2 dollars to the US economy."
Where does that two dollars come from? Does it just magically appear? Is it grown on trees?
Something doesn't add up. If I took the statement at face value, the US should not have a deficit nor a debt. Because, for it to be true, it would also equally apply to all government spending. Last I checked, there was a record number of food stamp recipients but GDP has remained stagnant and the US debt is increasing, not decreasing. That's not what I'd expect with a doubling of cash infusion into the economy from money "created" from food stamps. But then, liberal math never adds up.
The number for that specific fact may not have been the most current. The number on this info graphic is the most current I found, the numbers came from congressional budget office. Can't really get a more accurate number than that
no, all this demostrates is your ignorance of world events.Sweden... I turn the TV off for one weekend and now we have Sweden. What in the actual fuck is going on here? Bowling Green Massacre, Terror Attack in Atlanta, now bullshit fake news about Sweden. I'm afraid to ask, but what's next?
Sweden... I turn the TV off for one weekend and now we have Sweden. What in the actual fuck is going on here? Bowling Green Massacre, Terror Attack in Atlanta, now bullshit fake news about Sweden. I'm afraid to ask, but what's next?
no,no,no......don't do it...it's like trying to teach geometry to a fucking chimp.Let's focus on #3 for a moment. "Every dollar spent on food stamps returns 2 dollars to the US economy."
Where does that two dollars come from? Does it just magically appear? Is it grown on trees?
Something doesn't add up. If I took the statement at face value, the US should not have a deficit nor a debt. Because, for it to be true, it would also equally apply to all government spending. Last I checked, there was a record number of food stamp recipients but GDP has remained stagnant and the US debt is increasing, not decreasing. That's not what I'd expect with a doubling of cash infusion into the economy from money "created" from food stamps. But then, liberal math never adds up.
no, all this demostrates is your ignorance of world events.
Actually, please don't enlighten me, for the first time ever I guess I will test this ignore function. I refuse to be a miserable asshole with this guy.
He can't. There is no way to have an actual conversation with it. It just growls and snarls and slings insults to disagree with what you say, while having no actual reason to do it. It'll never give you any actual information to back up your claims, instead will call you fat or trailer trash brilliant reallyActually, please don't enlighten me, for the first time ever I guess I will test this ignore function. I refuse to be a miserable asshole with this guy.
The number for that specific fact may not have been the most current. The number on this info graphic is the most current I found, the numbers came from congressional budget office. Can't really get a more accurate number than that
Quite possibly the best "post of the day"Actually, please don't enlighten me, for the first time ever I guess I will test this ignore function. I refuse to be a miserable asshole with this guy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhof...it-is-critical-to-continue-their-support/amp/The info graphic is too small in my browser. How about a link.
Congress can't balance a checkbook so I really have a hard time taking much from the Congressional Budget Office too seriously, but I'm willing to look at it.
It is money into the economy not the govt coffers.
And if I'm not spending my last dollar on groceries to feed my kids (hypothetically) I can now buy them new shoes instead of hand me downs, or a new backpack, etc etc etc
Ideally (in a perfect world that will never exist) everyone regardless of income (or non profit status) would pay a set percentage of their income in taxes. Say, 20% or whatever the magic number is. In the case of someone receiving government assistance, they're still paying taxes like the rest (as they already do) but receiving that extra dollar goes to food. So one dollar goes to food, one goes to other goods, both help the economy by ending up with the farmer or producer of said goods. And so on and so forth with the economic cycle.That's still dollar for dollar. The money you spend is fixed, whether you spend it on food or shoes. The government is still only adding one dollar but that's false also because the government must take the dollar out of the economy by taking it from a taxpayer first(or later through debt).
Ideally (in a perfect world that will never exist) everyone regardless of income (or non profit status) would pay a set percentage of their income in taxes. Say, 20% or whatever the magic number is. In the case of someone receiving government assistance, they're still paying taxes like the rest (as they already do) but receiving that extra dollar goes to food. So one dollar goes to food, one goes to other goods, both help the economy by ending up with the farmer or producer of said goods. And so on and so forth with the economic cycle.
Obviously the government would have to budget correctly to make it work in this way, but this is how it was originally set up to work.
://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/12126-steny-hoyer-food-stamps-welfare-programs-stimulate-the-economyOkay, I'm with ya on the flat tax. No problem there.
But even with a flat tax, in order for the government to pay out one dollar, it must take one dollar. The government isn't even adding one dollar. It's taking it from a taxpayer that would spend it in the economy and giving it to another taxpayer to spend in the economy. It's the same dollar. The dollar would go to the economy regardless of which taxpayer spends it.
Just as an example. If I pay my tax of one dollar that I would have used to buy a pack of gum and the government gives you that dollar to buy a can of food, that dollar has only changed from my hand to yours and would have went into the economy, as a whole, regardless of which one of us spent it. While you now have one more dollar to spend, I have one less. The net gain is zero for the economy because you'll use your extra dollar that you didn't have to spend on food to buy a pack of gum(or something) that I would have bought anyway.
edit to add; And that is just the initial dollar. We haven't even gotten to how it turns into two dollars.
CNSNews.com explained why the allegation that government redistribution ignites productive economy growth is illusory, asserting, "This claim, however obscures the fact that both saving and investment are also economically productive activities contributing to credit availability and business growth respectively." Further, it "ignores the fact that taxpayers whose money is used to fund food stamp programs may have spent their money on other things, including food, thus also contributing to the economy."
I'm guessing you're including yourself in that list.Quite possibly the best "post of the day"
If this feature was used more often, certain members would not have an audience, and would curb the problems in here.
I will bet he was exactly the same way about GWB.LAUGH IT LOUD BRO... he's sick in the head
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lol... he's alt right bro... he doesn't like season polish sausages..I will bet he was exactly the same way about GWB.
He cannot help it he like to be told what to think.
Nope, staff doesn't have the luxury of that optionI'm guessing you're including yourself in that list...
more's the pity..oh well I guess we'd all miss your inane memes of talking zebras and dancing chiquaquas which for you passes as wit and insight.Nope, staff doesn't have the luxury of that option
They like little trump sausages.Lol... he's alt right bro... he doesn't like season polish sausages..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
more's the pity..oh well I guess we'd all miss your inane memes of talking zebras and dancing chiquaquas which for you passes as wit and insight.
I keep wondering how that Fox and Fox News is not MSM to some?
Trump apparently he seems to love them and talks bad about the MSM.Who says it isn't?
Trump apparently he seems to love them and talks bad about the MSM.
His supporters seem the same way.
But he spoke highly of Fox Family and Friends I think the name is.Hmmm. I've seen Trump talk about the lying media, fake news, failed media, and calling them out by name(CNN). I don't recall him using "MSM". FOX news is certainly MSM and he didn't tread lightly on Megyn Kelly.