planting seed in anticipation of "fertilization" (human excrement) by others.....

HEE HEE!! jk

[QUOTE=oldtiger;1424077]Here's my 2 cents:

I was a recipient of welfare programs, state funded child care, WIC and food stamps. I also made my way through my undergrad utilizing veteran and pell grant programs.

Now I am in a position of comfort, not wealthy, but doing well. Between (employer portion) payroll taxes, personal payroll taxes and fedeal, state and local licenses and fees, I pay about $20,000- $22,000 a year. I don't mind it, and I don't mind my money going to welfare programs, because I know they work.

Are there people who "get over" on the system, absolutely. But there always have been and always will be, regardless of the system in place. So, if my contribution helps even a third of those out there utilizing it, I am satisfied.

I won't get to take it with me, and I find ostentatious displays of wealth to be odious. I wear $10 Academy shorts, I drive a vehicle which was less than $22k new (which was purchased with a multiple function role in mind, so only one vehicle was needed). I pay my employees appreciably more than the market wage. I take care of my kids, but they earn what they get from me.

I will never retire to an island in the Caribbean, I will work until I can't. I live a comfortable existence, and wouldn't if others hadn't helped me. So now I help others and sleep well knowing I do.




Thanks for your story oldtiger. You exemplify the people that I am fighting for and there are a hell of a lot more people like yourself than there are gaming the system and they are not responsible for the debt, or the financial distress that we are experiencing.
Its Wall Street, the Banks, Corporate America, the tax dodging wealthy who have enjoyed enormous tax cuts and tax havens for years under Bush and Republicans like we see here that would rather cut your throat than make those that are responsible pay their fare share.
Check this out: http://shar.es/Hl5Gm

"Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." —Michele Bachmann

Actually, she could be correct on that.

I remember in Biology that carbon dioxide is taken up by plants that then make oxygen. Oxygen levels in todays atmosphere are considerable higher than a few million years ago. What does that mean? More plants? More Oxygen? The climate is constantly changing, has for millions of years and will continue to cycle to warmer, then colder. Ice ages come and go. We were not even here for the first few Ice Ages which were followed by thousands of years of warmer weather. (but it is Bush's fault) Mother Earth is contantly balancing things out. She does not need an assist by us. If we overstep our bounds she will make a correction (although we might not like it much. She might do little things...like a new virus to kill of 50% of the population. I would worry more about that than carbon dioxide.

No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic. Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.

There is still some resistance to the theory that the increase in CO2 results from the burning of fossil fuel, and that the increase in CO2 is responsible for global warming.
There is little pressure on the US power plants to reduce CO2 emissions; so here it's still "Burning of fossil fuel is good for the environment" and "the world is flat."

The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.

Thatcher

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

- Middle Class America

I have always found right wing, conservative strange to be more kinky, once you got in, and liberal strange to be a little easier, and multi-orgasmic.

I wonder if there are any Hugo Chavez, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman quotes that would support my findings.

I have always found right wing, conservative strange to be more kinky, once you got in, and liberal strange to be a little easier, and multi-orgasmic.

I wonder if there are any Hugo Chavez, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman quotes that would support my findings. Originally Posted by flinde

flinde you are a true pervert, and in my book thats outstanding!! LMAO!!

I know you'll like this, I know I would!:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...33-503544.html

I have always found right wing, conservative strange to be more kinky, once you got in, and liberal strange to be a little easier, and multi-orgasmic.

I wonder if there are any Hugo Chavez, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman quotes that would support my findings. Originally Posted by flinde

I'd pay good money to cornhole Palin. She's hot!

I think you've mistaken conservatism with feudalism! Please show me an economic structure which has done more to create wealth, increase standards of living, give people the means to participate in leisure activities, and promote general freedom than capitalism.

Just one proven historical answer is all I ask.

I'd pay good money to cornhole Palin. She's hot! Originally Posted by oldtiger

Now throw Meghan McCain in the mix and we got a party!!!

"I'd pay good money to cornhole Palin. She's hot!"

I wouldn't. I'd go with the glasses on full on eat pineapple the day before face glazing after vigorous face fucking. Power scarf and hi-heels remain on, of course.

You betcha.

I think you've mistaken conservatism with feudalism! Please show me an economic structure which has done more to create wealth, increase standards of living, give people the means to participate in leisure activities, and promote general freedom than capitalism.

Just one proven historical answer is all I ask. Originally Posted by Rakhir

Impossible to answer that question for the following reasons:

!. Too many variables.
2. No established parameters.
3. Ideology would be an unsurmountable obstacle. For instance; my ideals as to what is wealth, standards of living and general freedom are not compatible with yours.
4. If you would like to use any of the following commonly used indexes of measurement: HDI (Human Development Index), HPI (Human Poverty Index) or GINI Coefficiant I would say Sweden or just about anywhere in the Netherlands. The US doesn't not rank anywhere in the top 5 for any of these indexes.

I think you've mistaken conservatism with feudalism! Please show me an economic structure which has done more to create wealth, increase standards of living, give people the means to participate in leisure activities, and promote general freedom than capitalism.

Just one proven historical answer is all I ask. Originally Posted by Rakhir

Conservatism=Neofeudalism and if you would like to debate that point game on!

NO, show him an economic structure. He asked you first after all.