Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[Flopper]

My point stands, you are a hypocrite. You don't do anymore than anyone else does. Grow up old man.

I'm not the dupe of greedy idiots megarich GOPers, dupe. You and your New BS GOP brainwashers have ruined the middle class and the country the last 35 years. After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

So 30 years of progressive policies has produced exactly no progress. Some may call that even more years invested in the poverty prevention system. You have accomplished exactly nothing in helping people with your generous donations of other peoples money. When do you think you will learn this?

Never. Be careful, he is a 6'4" 215 lb mean fighting machine.

I had no idea pure ******* stupid could stack that high. 6'4"? Pretty impressive.

Not stupid, dupe. 35 YEARS of Reaganism= After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole? Progressivism was BEFORE that. The rich taxed fairly, investment in the people and our infrastructure. THEN: Anything for the rich and giant corps DUHHHHH...

And the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't have the slightest idea of what your point is. My point is simply that the republicans, by blocking single payer health insurance, have, instead, saddled employers with the cost of health insurance, making manufacturers uncompetitive in the world market, and then blaming unions for the decline in sales of American cars.

Try to focus.

Single payer has to be paid by somebody... they will object

Single payer actually means everyone will be paying for the single higher government types getting all the healthcare and everyone else get's nothing. But you get to pay for it so maybe the term should be changed to single beneficiary.

Single payer means killing off the sick as quickly as possible. No more research into cures. That's unnecessary as the sick will be sedated until they die.

It's not single Pharma and death panels, dupe.

How the hell do you think that? Once it's single payer it's single whoever the government decides is your drug company, and they will distribute it to you on a must need basis. So yes, death panels. That's what single payer is you moron. Complete government control.

And yet, Medicare is essentially a single payer system, and none of the things you are whining about happens to those of us who are insured under it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Single payer has to be paid by somebody... they will object

Single payer actually means everyone will be paying for the single higher government types getting all the healthcare and everyone else get's nothing. But you get to pay for it so maybe the term should be changed to single beneficiary.

RW idiocy. It means everyone pays for their HC in their taxes and the gov't controls the costs. Works great everywhere. Half our cost and better life spans. ACA will work too, just takes time...

No, you're delusional.
No one Can afford these socialist entitlement programs...
Only ******* inbred morons like yourself would trust the federal government.

Every other modern country does, and without our advantages in natural resources. Don't worry, we can still be loudmouth rubes lol. If you GOP dupes would study actual facts the gov't wouldn't be screwing us all now with pander to the rich GOP garbage.

Every other country that does it cannot afford it, we would be in the same boat....

And despite your misinformation, not one single country is the world has opted to change to our employer group health insurance system.

 

[francoHFW]

100+ pages and we still have over half the people arguing that you can't care about the poor unless you are liberal and giving the money of others to them.

Government will never be the mechanism to best help the poor. And no matter how many people want to pretend you are not justified in ignoring the poor because government programs exist. Go out and feed someone.

There is one thing we've never tried (at least in my lifetime) to end poverty, and that is to end the handouts.

If you get hungry enough, you'll take one of those jobs posted at every corner of every street in the US. If your income is not enough, you will work more hours to bring in that income. If there is nothing incentivizing you to not work more hours, you may end up working 60 plus hours a week.

I would love to see all handouts stopped for a period of two years just to see the end results. I'd bet a months paycheck we would reduce poverty more that way than giving people money they didn't work for. I bet with no handouts, less people would enter poverty in the first place. Like I said, it's never been tried. The closest we came to that was in the 90's with welfare reform, and that was a huge success.

But why look back at what worked? Just listen to liberals to solve poverty.

Take away food from the poor and you have a lot hungry people.
Take away housing from the poor and you have a lot more homeless people.
Take away healthcare from the poor and you have more sick people.

In the US you have 9 million single parent families on welfare which includes 19 million kids. Take away government support and you'll have more runaways, child prostitution, and juvenile crime. With very rare exception, a single mother in poverty can not make enough money to support a family and care for the kids.

I'm quite aware of that, and do you know why? Because these are the same promises liberals made to us before welfare reform began. Between the time the law passed until it's implementation, we were promised riots in the streets, decomposed bodies of people from starvation, children running naked with no place to live, stores closed down and boarded up so nobody got any food.............. It never happened.

What will hungry people do with no food? Earn money to buy food.
What will people do with no HUD home in the suburbs? Seek shelter in the inner-city

How do we know most people would react this way? Because it's a basic law of electricity which also applies to people.

Electricity will take it's least path of resistance to travel. People do the exact same to survive.

You need food, and you have two choices A) government giving you food, or B) Go out and work for food. Now, what's is that path of least resistance to obtain food? What about shelter? What about utilities?

You on the left don't give people enough credit. If forced to, people would rather live another day to fight than to give up, crawl into a corner and die just because government isn't there to take care of them.

First off, 50% of those receiving government welfare have jobs, mostly par time and temp jobs.

Secondly, the majority of those that do not work at all either have to care for a number of children, have drug or alcohol addiction problems, mental problems, physical disabilities, lack of education, lack of any job training, or a criminal background. They are poor candidates for even minimum wage jobs. I have worked around these people in food banks and a homeless shelter. Believe me you would not even consider hiring most of them.

My major concern with a proposal to stop all goverment assistance to the poor is not so much for the poor but for the effect it would have on all society. However, the chance of this happens is about zero so it's hardly worth discussing.

So you spend/waste all of your time doing all you can for people you don't think are even capable of standing on their own. Actually you never said you did that. You just want all of us to pay for someone else to do it.

How 'bout making the rich and giant corps pay some for a change?

 

[Flopper]

100+ pages and we still have over half the people arguing that you can't care about the poor unless you are liberal and giving the money of others to them.

Government will never be the mechanism to best help the poor. And no matter how many people want to pretend you are not justified in ignoring the poor because government programs exist. Go out and feed someone.

There is one thing we've never tried (at least in my lifetime) to end poverty, and that is to end the handouts.

If you get hungry enough, you'll take one of those jobs posted at every corner of every street in the US. If your income is not enough, you will work more hours to bring in that income. If there is nothing incentivizing you to not work more hours, you may end up working 60 plus hours a week.

I would love to see all handouts stopped for a period of two years just to see the end results. I'd bet a months paycheck we would reduce poverty more that way than giving people money they didn't work for. I bet with no handouts, less people would enter poverty in the first place. Like I said, it's never been tried. The closest we came to that was in the 90's with welfare reform, and that was a huge success.

But why look back at what worked? Just listen to liberals to solve poverty.

Take away food from the poor and you have a lot hungry people.
Take away housing from the poor and you have a lot more homeless people.
Take away healthcare from the poor and you have more sick people.

In the US you have 9 million single parent families on welfare which includes 19 million kids. Take away government support and you'll have more runaways, child prostitution, and juvenile crime. With very rare exception, a single mother in poverty can not make enough money to support a family and care for the kids.

I'm quite aware of that, and do you know why? Because these are the same promises liberals made to us before welfare reform began. Between the time the law passed until it's implementation, we were promised riots in the streets, decomposed bodies of people from starvation, children running naked with no place to live, stores closed down and boarded up so nobody got any food.............. It never happened.

What will hungry people do with no food? Earn money to buy food.
What will people do with no HUD home in the suburbs? Seek shelter in the inner-city

How do we know most people would react this way? Because it's a basic law of electricity which also applies to people.

Electricity will take it's least path of resistance to travel. People do the exact same to survive.

You need food, and you have two choices A) government giving you food, or B) Go out and work for food. Now, what's is that path of least resistance to obtain food? What about shelter? What about utilities?

You on the left don't give people enough credit. If forced to, people would rather live another day to fight than to give up, crawl into a corner and die just because government isn't there to take care of them.

First off, 50% of those receiving government welfare have jobs, mostly par time and temp jobs.

Secondly, the majority of those that do not work at all either have to care for a number of children, have drug or alcohol addiction problems, mental problems, physical disabilities, lack of education, lack of any job training, or a criminal background. They are poor candidates for even minimum wage jobs. I have worked around these people in food banks and a homeless shelter. Believe me you would not even consider hiring most of them.

My major concern with a proposal to stop all goverment assistance to the poor is not so much for the poor but for the effect it would have on all society. However, the chance of this happens is about zero so it's hardly worth discussing.

Then let me ask: why is it I can support myself because I never had children, never became addicted to alcohol or drugs, had a lack of education or job training, or have a criminal record?

You see..... these are called choices. We all make choices in life. As for those legitimately physically or mentally incapable of taking care of themselves, we as a society do take care of those people.

Our government can't create programs to rectify bad choices in life. When somebody makes a bad choice, they have to live with the consequences. If you are a 18 year old punk who doesn't know any better and tries to rob a bank, you may end up in prison for over 20 years. if you make the mistake of murdering somebody, it may cost you your life.

I think it's obvious the poor did not make the right choices. The problem is the 16 million kids they produce who live in poverty. You can't cut the parents out of welfare programs without cutting the kids. Most of the welfare money goes to families. Unless they are disabled single adults without dependents get very little welfare money. The families are the problem.

 

[Rustic]

Single payer actually means everyone will be paying for the single higher government types getting all the healthcare and everyone else get's nothing. But you get to pay for it so maybe the term should be changed to single beneficiary.

RW idiocy. It means everyone pays for their HC in their taxes and the gov't controls the costs. Works great everywhere. Half our cost and better life spans. ACA will work too, just takes time...

No, you're delusional.
No one Can afford these socialist entitlement programs...
Only ******* inbred morons like yourself would trust the federal government.

Every other modern country does, and without our advantages in natural resources. Don't worry, we can still be loudmouth rubes lol. If you GOP dupes would study actual facts the gov't wouldn't be screwing us all now with pander to the rich GOP garbage.

Every other country that does it cannot afford it, we would be in the same boat....

And despite your misinformation, not one single country is the world has opted to change to our employer group health insurance system.

Who's going to pay for your socialism? Why include everybody that does not want anything to do with your social?

 

[Vandalshandle]

RW idiocy. It means everyone pays for their HC in their taxes and the gov't controls the costs. Works great everywhere. Half our cost and better life spans. ACA will work too, just takes time...

No, you're delusional.
No one Can afford these socialist entitlement programs...
Only ******* inbred morons like yourself would trust the federal government.

Every other modern country does, and without our advantages in natural resources. Don't worry, we can still be loudmouth rubes lol. If you GOP dupes would study actual facts the gov't wouldn't be screwing us all now with pander to the rich GOP garbage.

Every other country that does it cannot afford it, we would be in the same boat....

And despite your misinformation, not one single country is the world has opted to change to our employer group health insurance system.

Who's going to pay for your socialism? Why include everybody that does not want anything to do with your social?

I don't want to pay for a bloated military that costs more than the next 7 nations combined, but I don't have much of a choice, do I?

 

[francoHFW]

RW idiocy. It means everyone pays for their HC in their taxes and the gov't controls the costs. Works great everywhere. Half our cost and better life spans. ACA will work too, just takes time...

No, you're delusional.
No one Can afford these socialist entitlement programs...
Only ******* inbred morons like yourself would trust the federal government.

Every other modern country does, and without our advantages in natural resources. Don't worry, we can still be loudmouth rubes lol. If you GOP dupes would study actual facts the gov't wouldn't be screwing us all now with pander to the rich GOP garbage.

Every other country that does it cannot afford it, we would be in the same boat....

And despite your misinformation, not one single country is the world has opted to change to our employer group health insurance system.

Who's going to pay for your socialism? Why include everybody that does not want anything to do with your social?

The rich and giant corps. Feq em, the whackjobs...

 

[hunarcy]

There is one thing we've never tried (at least in my lifetime) to end poverty, and that is to end the handouts.

If you get hungry enough, you'll take one of those jobs posted at every corner of every street in the US. If your income is not enough, you will work more hours to bring in that income. If there is nothing incentivizing you to not work more hours, you may end up working 60 plus hours a week.

I would love to see all handouts stopped for a period of two years just to see the end results. I'd bet a months paycheck we would reduce poverty more that way than giving people money they didn't work for. I bet with no handouts, less people would enter poverty in the first place. Like I said, it's never been tried. The closest we came to that was in the 90's with welfare reform, and that was a huge success.

But why look back at what worked? Just listen to liberals to solve poverty.

Take away food from the poor and you have a lot hungry people.
Take away housing from the poor and you have a lot more homeless people.
Take away healthcare from the poor and you have more sick people.

In the US you have 9 million single parent families on welfare which includes 19 million kids. Take away government support and you'll have more runaways, child prostitution, and juvenile crime. With very rare exception, a single mother in poverty can not make enough money to support a family and care for the kids.

I'm quite aware of that, and do you know why? Because these are the same promises liberals made to us before welfare reform began. Between the time the law passed until it's implementation, we were promised riots in the streets, decomposed bodies of people from starvation, children running naked with no place to live, stores closed down and boarded up so nobody got any food.............. It never happened.

What will hungry people do with no food? Earn money to buy food.
What will people do with no HUD home in the suburbs? Seek shelter in the inner-city

How do we know most people would react this way? Because it's a basic law of electricity which also applies to people.

Electricity will take it's least path of resistance to travel. People do the exact same to survive.

You need food, and you have two choices A) government giving you food, or B) Go out and work for food. Now, what's is that path of least resistance to obtain food? What about shelter? What about utilities?

You on the left don't give people enough credit. If forced to, people would rather live another day to fight than to give up, crawl into a corner and die just because government isn't there to take care of them.

First off, 50% of those receiving government welfare have jobs, mostly par time and temp jobs.

Secondly, the majority of those that do not work at all either have to care for a number of children, have drug or alcohol addiction problems, mental problems, physical disabilities, lack of education, lack of any job training, or a criminal background. They are poor candidates for even minimum wage jobs. I have worked around these people in food banks and a homeless shelter. Believe me you would not even consider hiring most of them.

My major concern with a proposal to stop all goverment assistance to the poor is not so much for the poor but for the effect it would have on all society. However, the chance of this happens is about zero so it's hardly worth discussing.

So you spend/waste all of your time doing all you can for people you don't think are even capable of standing on their own. Actually you never said you did that. You just want all of us to pay for someone else to do it.

How 'bout making the rich and giant corps pay some for a change?

How about finding out who pays most of the taxes in this nation and stop posting such utter crap for a change?

 

[Asclepias]

RW idiocy. It means everyone pays for their HC in their taxes and the gov't controls the costs. Works great everywhere. Half our cost and better life spans. ACA will work too, just takes time...

No, you're delusional.
No one Can afford these socialist entitlement programs...
Only ******* inbred morons like yourself would trust the federal government.

Every other modern country does, and without our advantages in natural resources. Don't worry, we can still be loudmouth rubes lol. If you GOP dupes would study actual facts the gov't wouldn't be screwing us all now with pander to the rich GOP garbage.

Every other country that does it cannot afford it, we would be in the same boat....

And despite your misinformation, not one single country is the world has opted to change to our employer group health insurance system.

Who's going to pay for your socialism? Why include everybody that does not want anything to do with your social?

You are going to pay if you are employed.

Because you were born in a country that demands you pay taxes for the right to make as much money as you want. You simply dont have good options. You either pay up or go to prison.

 

[francoHFW]

Take away food from the poor and you have a lot hungry people.
Take away housing from the poor and you have a lot more homeless people.
Take away healthcare from the poor and you have more sick people.

In the US you have 9 million single parent families on welfare which includes 19 million kids. Take away government support and you'll have more runaways, child prostitution, and juvenile crime. With very rare exception, a single mother in poverty can not make enough money to support a family and care for the kids.

I'm quite aware of that, and do you know why? Because these are the same promises liberals made to us before welfare reform began. Between the time the law passed until it's implementation, we were promised riots in the streets, decomposed bodies of people from starvation, children running naked with no place to live, stores closed down and boarded up so nobody got any food.............. It never happened.

What will hungry people do with no food? Earn money to buy food.
What will people do with no HUD home in the suburbs? Seek shelter in the inner-city

How do we know most people would react this way? Because it's a basic law of electricity which also applies to people.

Electricity will take it's least path of resistance to travel. People do the exact same to survive.

You need food, and you have two choices A) government giving you food, or B) Go out and work for food. Now, what's is that path of least resistance to obtain food? What about shelter? What about utilities?

You on the left don't give people enough credit. If forced to, people would rather live another day to fight than to give up, crawl into a corner and die just because government isn't there to take care of them.

First off, 50% of those receiving government welfare have jobs, mostly par time and temp jobs.

Secondly, the majority of those that do not work at all either have to care for a number of children, have drug or alcohol addiction problems, mental problems, physical disabilities, lack of education, lack of any job training, or a criminal background. They are poor candidates for even minimum wage jobs. I have worked around these people in food banks and a homeless shelter. Believe me you would not even consider hiring most of them.

My major concern with a proposal to stop all goverment assistance to the poor is not so much for the poor but for the effect it would have on all society. However, the chance of this happens is about zero so it's hardly worth discussing.

So you spend/waste all of your time doing all you can for people you don't think are even capable of standing on their own. Actually you never said you did that. You just want all of us to pay for someone else to do it.

How 'bout making the rich and giant corps pay some for a change?

How about finding out who pays most of the taxes in this nation and stop posting such utter crap for a change?

They no longer pay more %wise as they always have and should. Corps used to pay 35% of the total, now 10%. Reaganism suqs for the nonrich...

 

[francoHFW]

RW idiocy. It means everyone pays for their HC in their taxes and the gov't controls the costs. Works great everywhere. Half our cost and better life spans. ACA will work too, just takes time...

No, you're delusional.
No one Can afford these socialist entitlement programs...
Only ******* inbred morons like yourself would trust the federal government.

Every other modern country does, and without our advantages in natural resources. Don't worry, we can still be loudmouth rubes lol. If you GOP dupes would study actual facts the gov't wouldn't be screwing us all now with pander to the rich GOP garbage.

Every other country that does it cannot afford it, we would be in the same boat....

And despite your misinformation, not one single country is the world has opted to change to our employer group health insurance system.

Who's going to pay for your socialism? Why include everybody that does not want anything to do with your social?

Obama didn't want a mandate...Paid parental leave doesn't cost as much as the dupes think either...That's all I want...

 

[Rustic]

No, you're delusional.
No one Can afford these socialist entitlement programs...
Only ******* inbred morons like yourself would trust the federal government.

Every other modern country does, and without our advantages in natural resources. Don't worry, we can still be loudmouth rubes lol. If you GOP dupes would study actual facts the gov't wouldn't be screwing us all now with pander to the rich GOP garbage.

Every other country that does it cannot afford it, we would be in the same boat....

And despite your misinformation, not one single country is the world has opted to change to our employer group health insurance system.

Who's going to pay for your socialism? Why include everybody that does not want anything to do with your social?

You are going to pay if you are employed.

Because you were born in a country that demands you pay taxes for the right to make as much money as you want. You simply dont have good options. You either pay up or go to prison.

You ever hear of taxation without representation?

 

[Rustic]

No, you're delusional.
No one Can afford these socialist entitlement programs...
Only ******* inbred morons like yourself would trust the federal government.

Every other modern country does, and without our advantages in natural resources. Don't worry, we can still be loudmouth rubes lol. If you GOP dupes would study actual facts the gov't wouldn't be screwing us all now with pander to the rich GOP garbage.

Every other country that does it cannot afford it, we would be in the same boat....

And despite your misinformation, not one single country is the world has opted to change to our employer group health insurance system.

Who's going to pay for your socialism? Why include everybody that does not want anything to do with your social?

Obama didn't want a mandate...Paid parental leave doesn't cost as much as the dupes think either...That's all I want...

Wrong

 

[Skull Pilot]

You always have the option of not buying the goods and services produced by any corporation that you feel oppressed by.

Can you give me a specific example of a CEO whose salary has oppressed you? Who, how much is his/her salary and how has it oppressed you? Don't respond in generalities. I want specifics.

The government oppresses us a million times more than any CEO.

I have a choice with corporations but I have no choice with this filthy oppressive government.

If I don't buy a good or service from a CEO's corporation I have only lost the utility of the good or service. If I I don't want to give a welfare queen my money then the fitly government will eventually send the jackbooted thugs to take my property by force or throw me in jail.

Do you understand the difference?

By the way, back in the 1970s I had some Disney stock that wasn't worth too much. Then the Disney Board of Directors hired Michael Eisner. Due to his leadership my stock grew in value tremendously and hundreds of millions people enjoyed the goods and services provided by the Disney corporation. If I remember correctly Eisner made a couple of hundred million each year. How was I or anybody else hurt by his salary?

I like oil company hiring CEOs that are competent and gets the oil out of the ground and into my gas tank, don't you?

I like my investment company hiring a CEO that takes care of my 401K for me. That keeps me happy. I don't care how much they pay him.

I like the CEO of Publix making money getting groceries to the local store. I like the CEO of General Mills getting the food from the ground to the grocery store, don't you?

I suspect that the only reason you hate CEO salaries is nothing more than greed and envy. The welfare queens and illegal aliens steals a lot more money from you than any CEO. You are simply confused about it.

The corporation that I work for now is a good example of the dynamic I'm describing. When I started, the company was run by the founder who took it from small start up to international corporation. He was an engineer turned entrepreneur who never forgot the value of the people who were working for him and he had numerous programs for training and recognition that showed him to be a true humanitarian. Fast forward about 5 or 10 years and he was getting too old to continue. That's when the usual cadre of self promoters, and business types who had no idea how to create a product all vying for their lucrative slot in the big corporation. The humanitarian aspect disappeared and was replaced by the usual mantra of downsize, outsource and exploit. As someone who innovates for a living, I can tell you that the idea that there are no limits to your slice of the pie has been listening to too many motivational speakers. As fast paced as the development cycle is, there are always limits and the guys at the top will make sure they get way more than anyone else.

And don't even get me started on Michael Eisner. He turned Disneyland into a tee shirt store. Talk about putting minimal value in and milking maximum money out.

Eisner did turn the Disney Corp into a T shirt company but people made money off the t shirts. Lots of money because other people wanted to buy the t-shirts. I made a nice profit on my stock. Hundreds of millions of people bought what Eisner was selling

If you don't ever want to buy anything made by Disney then that is fine. You don't ever have to contribute to the money that the CEO of Disney makes. It doesn't hurt you in the least how much the CEO of Disney makes, does it?

In fact it doesn't hurt you in the least what any CEO makes and that is the reason you never answered my questions, isn't it? You can't come up with any concrete examples of where some CEOs salary has ever hurt you, can you?

However, I can you a great example of how the filthy ass government hurts me. I have to pay taxes each year and other people gets some of the money that I earned. People that did nothing to earn the money that I gave the filthy government.

Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people poured their creativity and talent into making Disneyland one of the coolest places in the world and as it happened, it turned a nice profit at the same time. Then this greedy ******* parasite moves in and in a classic case of short term self interest, makes it half as cool as it once was. Sorry, this is the seedy belly on capitalism at work. Why couldn't he have picked an industry that's already been ruined like health insurance to ply his trade?

didn't those tens and hundreds of thousands of people make a buck? Or are you saying they did out the goodness of their hearts? you all are too funny I have to admit that. comedians all of you.

Ok, this is the essence of the difference between conservatives and liberals. Since conservatives have little to no creative impulse, everything is about making a buck. Those of us who are creative also have to eat so we try to earn money in interesting ways and aren't looking for the largest short term gain we can possibly get. However, that doesn't mean we don't feel screwed when an opportunist funnels the fruits of our creativity primarily to themselves.

then don't sell your labor to anyone

you accepted a price for your labor if you don't like the arrangement then quit your job

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well after 50 pages I thought that I might summarise the general feeling.

1. Its their own fault.
2. **** em.
3. I did fine so why cant they ?
4. **** em.
5. I really hate them.
6. Its Gods will.
7. **** em.
8. I have done really well.
9. And so have my kids.
10. **** em.

Have I missed anything ?

They are not really poor

Cant be poor and own a fridge.

Fridge?.....our poor eat caviar and lobster for breakfast

they can certainly afford 5 dollar coffees and a pack of cigarettes a day though

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why are much of the poor in The United States fat?

Because Corn Syrup is in the top 3 ingredients in most of the cheap food they can afford.

that's bullshit

staples like rice, beans, flour, oats etc are very inexpensive
frozen vegetables are cheap, canned are even cheaper

 

[Skull Pilot]

and you still cannot answer my question

if it makes it any easier for you take ALL the people making a million dollars a year or more and then tell me how that makes ALL the rest of the people earn less than they do

Under voodoo, the rich don't pay their fair share and there's no money to invest in training and ed for jobs going begging. Duh. Shortfalls in fed aids to states also make state and local taxes and fees rise, taxes which kill the nonrich.

define fair share

Higher than now. My opinion? Over 250 40%, over 700k 50%, over 10 mil 60%, over 20 mil 70, over 40 mil 80, over 80 mil 90%.

and you think you will get some of it

and tell me what the hell is fair about taking 90% of even a portion of a person's income?

No, I don't, dupe. I'm thinking of the good of the COUNTRY. Your greedy idiot billionaire brainwashers should try it.

It's the only way to get ridiculous pay under control and get some help for the ruined middle class and below.

so you want to take money from some people to give it to other people

that is theft

 

[Skull Pilot]

define fair share

Higher than now. My opinion? Over 250 40%, over 700k 50%, over 10 mil 60%, over 20 mil 70, over 40 mil 80, over 80 mil 90%.

and you think you will get some of it

and tell me what the hell is fair about taking 90% of even a portion of a person's income?

No, I don't, dupe. I'm thinking of the good of the COUNTRY. Your greedy idiot billionaire brainwashers should try it.

It's the only way to get ridiculous pay under control and get some help for the ruined middle class and below.

who do you suppose give the middle class their jobs? this is why you can't make this shit up. hahahahaahaha

70% small business, not trust babies, dupe.

you do realize that the government defines "small business " as any business with 500 employees or less and that definition encompasses almost 95% of all business in this country don't you?

No, of course you don't

 

[Skull Pilot]

The first ingredient in quality BBQ sauce should be tomato.

Cheap BBQ sauce ingredients order of content

High Fructose Corn Syrup, Distilled Vinegar, Modified Food Starch, Tomato Paste, Contains less than 2% of: Salt, Pineapple Juice, Natural Smoke Flavor, Spices, Caramel, Color, Sodium Benzoate, Molasses, Corn Syrup, Dried Garlic, Sugar, Tamarind, Natural Flavor.

BBQ sauce is NOT a staple food