• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Example of What's Wrong with America

diamondlil said:
Lavender said:
So we should reward loose women with my tax money because babydaddies r too sorry to raise their own children?
I agree. There should be some way of shaming these women. I think a scarlet 'A' would be perfect.
Click to expand...

How about branding the runaway sperm donors with a huge red S?
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. It does take two to tango, and the men are just as guilty as the women. Look at my dad, for instance. I'm number 5 of 6 biological kids. Only two of us are from the same woman. He ran off on 4 of them before their first birthday. I think what he did was absolutely deplorable. I have 2 half sisters, 2 half brothers, and 1 full sister (and a step-sister and step-brother now). 8 kids, and he only really knows two of us. Not really a good track record, in my opinion.
 
546168_469066306457020_1723407950_n.jpg
 
Hear you on the child support. Thing is from what I hear from the babydaddies at work is that they are ganished to the point that it sounds like mama and child support. A man shouldn't have to be told to raise his children. But He is told, in fact he is commanded to do it in scripture. Any way I would support a tax system that hunted down bastard daddies and somehow extract the support out of them, than the system that is in place now.
 
Lavender said:
Hear you on the child support. Thing is from what I hear from the babydaddies at work is that they are ganished to the point that it sounds like mama and child support. A man shouldn't have to be told to raise his children. But He is told, in fact he is commanded to do it in scripture. Any way I would support a tax system that hunted down bastard daddies and somehow extract the support out of them, than the system that is in place now.
Click to expand...

I am a project manager in a construction company and I am sure there are exemptions, however, we have numerous employees (males) that have their wages garnished due to the state setting the amount owed. Some are deadbeats, some are good dads, but this is the way it is guaranteed to the moms. My biological father was responsible to make his payments to my mom in this manner.

Believe it or not, one of the big problems is some women do not pursue what they have ot on their end. I am not blaming them, just stating that Dad's can be made and in lots of cases DO the right thing.

Of course, this opens up the next question, do the moms always do the right thing with the money? Is it always used to buy food, clothing, educational materials etc. only for the child? I am betting the answer is no on the moms and yes there are tons of pitiful dads so I am perfectly fine with shaming both, just no the kids. Being born to pieces of crap is not their fault now is it?

dc
 
Since that really only applies to EBT accounts with cash withdraw options... it's not like you weren't already buying pot to begin with. I see little difference/harm in allowing people who have cash withdraw options from being able to withdraw cash at various ATMs. Not that I'm condoning people spend government assistance money on pot or anything, but there's little difference between sliding the card there, or walking across the street to the market and sliding the card at their ATM.

It's not like the law says "Ok, people are allowed to use their EBT card for direct purchase of Marijuana at pot shops."
 
Is the objection that people that use medical marijuana may use public assistance dollars to do so? Does that mean that people on assistance aren't allowed to buy anything from pharmacies either? That seems odd.
 
I am extremely skeptical on the medicinal properties of marijuana outside of mild pain relief and appetite -which certainly does have a place with cancer patients, etc. And there are some unique cases of schizophrenia and so forth being managed effectively. But it is prescribed to anyone for any reason and considered "medicine." I don't mind at all if people want to smoke pot, but I am not in favor of public assistance being used for medical mj in the vast majority of cases. If the feds would simply legalize it, it could be grown with impunity and the price would plummet. This would not only save tax dollars going to law enforcement for fighting a plant that grows in all 50 states, but would make the "prescriptions" very, very inexpensive. And I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why we should pay law enforcement to take people's property, invade their homes or lock them in a cage for growing any plant.
 
It has never been about the government trying to "protect" us from drugs. It's always been about control. The more things that are illegal the more control that can be applied to your life. In my opinion, the legal restrictions against drugs has created a bigger problem than if people were allowed to simply make their own decisions about what they do with their bodies and lives.

Make the stuff illegal and therefore make the prices skyrocket to where it has become BIG business and people willing to rob and kill over it, well, yeah, now we have gotten caught in the crossfire. If it were legal, and therefore cheap to get, why would criminal activity even bother to get involved if there is no lucrative profit margin to be had? Why were drugs actually made illegal?

Seriously, you want to burn your brains out with drugs? Be my guest. Just don't leave your carcass on my property for me to have to clean up afterwards, OK?
 
Chip, I like most of what you said, but the skepticism regarding medical marijuana made me perk up. Really, lots of stuff is over prescribed. We don't prevent people from getting their prescriptions in that case, though.

To me, social assistance is exactly the same as a wage or salary in that an agreement was struck and the person is receiving money as per the agreement. Unless you argue that your employer is allowed to dictate your purchasing habits, or that you are allowed to dictate the purchasing habits of employees of stores you frequent, any kind of restriction on purchasing goods with money received from social assistance reeks of hypocrisy.

We have an agreement for citizenship: We pay taxes. We don't like it, we vote for someone else, or we leave. If the people we vote for decide to spend the taxes in ways we don't like, we can vote for someone else, or even, in some cases, recall politicians. If we don't like the way a private individual is spending their money, our only right is to shut our fat mouths.
 
Nythain said:
Since that really only applies to EBT accounts with cash withdraw options... it's not like you weren't already buying pot to begin with. I see little difference/harm in allowing people who have cash withdraw options from being able to withdraw cash at various ATMs. Not that I'm condoning people spend government assistance money on pot or anything, but there's little difference between sliding the card there, or walking across the street to the market and sliding the card at their ATM.

It's not like the law says "Ok, people are allowed to use their EBT card for direct purchase of Marijuana at pot shops."
Click to expand...
Fair point. I guess IMO they shouldn't be given taxpayer money to freely spend outside of absolute need. IMO no ATM withdraws. :shrugs:

Nova_C said:
Is the objection that people that use medical marijuana may use public assistance dollars to do so? Does that mean that people on assistance aren't allowed to buy anything from pharmacies either? That seems odd.
Click to expand...
The objection is that "public assistance" has went from a short term need to long term way of life in this country. aka Socialist/Marxism.

Nova_C said:
Chip, I like most of what you said, but the skepticism regarding medical marijuana made me perk up. Really, lots of stuff is over prescribed. We don't prevent people from getting their prescriptions in that case, though.

To me, social assistance is exactly the same as a wage or salary in that an agreement was struck and the person is receiving money as per the agreement. Unless you argue that your employer is allowed to dictate your purchasing habits, or that you are allowed to dictate the purchasing habits of employees of stores you frequent, any kind of restriction on purchasing goods with money received from social assistance reeks of hypocrisy.

We have an agreement for citizenship: We pay taxes. We don't like it, we vote for someone else, or we leave. If the people we vote for decide to spend the taxes in ways we don't like, we can vote for someone else, or even, in some cases, recall politicians. If we don't like the way a private individual is spending their money, our only right is to shut our fat mouths.
Click to expand...
I agree with Chip and Rich on the decriminalization of marijuana.

I love de-stigmatized gov descriptions but for clarity sake lets call it what it is. Money forcibly taken from one person and given freely to another (aka social assistance) by politicians, usually in lieu of votes. Comparing it to salary EARNED is a horrid analogy IMHO. The use of money taken (aka SA) should absolutely be scrutinized to avoid abuse, which is rampant already in our system. Unfettered spending of taxpayer money reeks of absurdity. It's one of the biggest reasons we are $18 trillion in debt.

As far as an agreement for citizenship that is absolutely laughable. Here it is known as the US Constitution. Our politicians violate it daily with impunity! Our system has become so corrupt and deviated from intent and word that, as the POTUS said, it is fundamentally transforming (not in a good way). I am dismayed regularly by the peoples ineptness at seeing the projected transformational path is utterly unsustainable.

As for your last statement … it is not their money nor is it government money, it is taxpayer money. And we have every right to question the way taxpayer money is spent, period.
 
tsst said:
As for your last statement … it is not their money nor is it government money, it is taxpayer money. And we have every right to question the way taxpayer money is spent, period.
Click to expand...

I see. So you differentiate based on the source. People (And companies?) receiving government funds have a responsibility to provide you with, what, exactly? I'm afraid I don't understand the notion that the freedom you claim to love stops with a government cheque.
 
Nova_C said:
I see. So you differentiate based on the source. People (And companies?) receiving government funds have a responsibility to provide you with, what, exactly? I'm afraid I don't understand the notion that the freedom you claim to love stops with a government cheque.
Click to expand...

How about simply accountability? If you are being given MY money then I believe I should have a right to ask you exactly what it is being spent on. Otherwise my money is better off being in my own pockets, thank you very much, to be used at MY discretion. After all, I earned it, didn't I? What did YOU do to warrant taking it from me for your use?

If there is no accountability with how money is being spent, there WILL be abuse.

Actually this sounds like an excellent job for the IRS. They should not only audit the SOURCES of income to the US government, but also all of the outlays as well to make certain they adhere to legal constraints and ethical standards on how PUBLIC funds are being utilized.
 
At what point does it stop being your money? Are all the employees of the banks that received government bailout money beholden to you? Employees of government contractors? The contractors themselves? How many times does the money change hands before you no longer hold sway over the people that have received it?

This is very educational. I guess freedom really is all about money, isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top