97 missing children found in Memphis

[paindonthurt]

It reveals a lot more about your intelligence than it does theirs.

I take that as a compliment coming from you

 

[paindonthurt]

Might I add functional, common sense driven immigration laws.

Yeah like limited immigration
Set what is healthy population growth

if we are behind due to births, supplement that with immigration.

HEALTHY growth or any immigration should never come with government money. EVER!!

 

[paindonthurt]

You can damn well bet the next time the Dems are in office you will see the NG deployed over guns, among other things.

The Dems started the exec power grab. Not the republicans

 

[paindonthurt]

Yeah I find it very ironic a guy who claims to be a lifelong conservative never backs anything conservative.

And he hates trump bc he’s so conservative and far right!!

Nothing about trump is far right and super conservative.
His view on abortion?
His view on LGBTQ+?
his views on spending?

Extremely ironic!

 

[paindonthurt]

I am totally on board and fully support the concept of junk food not qualifying for SNAP benefits.
In practice though?…I am skeptical and think the juice would not be worth the squeeze.

First, how much is actually spent on junk food? I would bet that the amount spent would require at least six zeros after a decimal point if the amount were converted to the percentage of our budget.
it just is not a financial savings. I don’t have the numbers and I don’t think anyone has the numbers, but simply knowing our budget, that would be like a raindrop in the ocean.

Second, the cost and burden to implement and oversee such a policy seems like it would be very burdensome.
Cigarettes and alcohol are currently banned from snap eligibility right now, but those are easy to manage because all products that have alcohol or tobacco are in eligible.
There is no similar product in junk food that would allow for easy management of qualifying and disqualifying products.
If you say a certain amount of sugar is the limit, manufacturers will switch to any number of alternative sweeteners or adjust serving size to qualify.

Third, if the argument is that SNAP must be used to purchase the most cost effective products that are nutritious(and what other reason would there be to regulate it somuch?), then any name brand products that also have generics or house brands should only allow the house brands to qualify.
Additionally, only specific cuts of meat or types of meat would qualify.


Administering and managing such a program would be overly burdensome. You could push it off to the retailers to manage and comply with, but that would require additional costs on their side...which will be passed to consumers, obviously.


Tldr, I am sure.

TLDR past second paragraph!

It would be really easy to eliminate junk food.

You get several quick benefits.
Several you lunatic libs claim to want.
1. Healthier poor people
2. More actual food in their homes bc more money bc it isn’t being spent on junk.
3. Save some money for taxpayers
4. A reason to get up and go work more bc you might want those luxury items

It’s a really simple and logical concept.

 

[paindonthurt]

Based on one side’s views on immigration, regardless of how much good he had done or how long he lived here peacefully, Superman would be forcefully removed from this country and sent God knows where. So, Superman is not a great example to explain your stance.

In all seriousness, if you truly believe one political party is always using common sense and working for the greater good while the other is always doing things that are “wasteful”, “stupid”, and “evil”, then you’re either wildly naive or willfully ignorant.

See this is a total lie.

im ok with controlled immigration but they should at a minimum

1. be good people and not causing protest over hamas or participating in them (any other terrorist support)
2. Not need a single government dollar
3. Speak our language
4. Learn basic civics and be tested on it to vote
5. Adapt to our way of life

 

[paindonthurt]

You forgot “tax billionaires”.

They are taxed.
They contribute to 50% of all tax revenue. Probably closer to 60%.

This is why we don’t take you all seriously and call you stupid. You can’t do basic math.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

You forgot “tax billionaires”.

Even if you tax billionaires the math doesn’t math.

The elephant in the room is to properly fund the government with all the programs and spending you’ve got to tax the middle class even more and nobody is going to do that.

 

[mstateglfr]

TLDR past second paragraph!

It would be really easy to eliminate junk food.

You get several quick benefits.
Several you lunatic libs claim to want.
1. Healthier poor people
2. More actual food in their homes bc more money bc it isn’t being spent on junk.
3. Save some money for taxpayers
4. A reason to get up and go work more bc you might want those luxury items

It’s a really simple and logical concept.

Honest question, are you President Trump?
You have the exact same dismissive and gloss over details approach as him, in response to real examples of concern and challenge.
It is uncanny.

I took time to offer up genuine thought and listed out what are very real concerns with how to effectively and successfully implement an initiative that you support.
You dismissed all of it by doing your typical TLDR response, and then just claiming I’m wrong because it will be easy.

 

[8dog]

Even if you tax billionaires the math doesn’t math.

The elephant in the room is to properly fund the government with all the programs and spending you’ve got to tax the middle class even more and nobody is going to do that.

Exactly. Episodes 626 of Freakonomics is a great listen. Spoiler it’s a really good tax lesson from a trans who worked for the Heritage Foundation.

 

[paindonthurt]

Honest question, are you President Trump?
You have the exact same dismissive and gloss over details approach as him, in response to real examples of concern and challenge.
It is uncanny.

I took time to offer up genuine thought and listed out what are very real concerns with how to effectively and successfully implement an initiative that you support.
You dismissed all of it by doing your typical TLDR response, and then just claiming I’m wrong because it will be easy.

TLDR

you really gotta work on being clearer and more concise.

 

[mstateglfr]

Exactly. Episodes 626 of Freakonomics is a great listen. Spoiler it’s a really good tax lesson from a trans who worked for the Heritage Foundation.

I like freakonomics episode - they are geekishly entertaining and get me to read up on various topics.

I looked that episode up and remember it. That episode was frustrating.
The economist did what many seem to do and a claim was made that is true, but lacks meaning- that wealthy pay more. What wasn't discussed and is often ignored is how the higher taxation impacts a 1%er vs a 30%er.
And there was discussion about how middle class in America pays less than elsewhere. But if elsewhere offers more servies, then it isn't an even comparison and it is disingenuous to claim middle class America pays less.

 

[mstateglfr]

TLDR

you really gotta work on being clearer and more concise.

It is a shame that you are unable to read 5 short paragraphs that are directly related to an issue you claim to support.

 

[paindonthurt]

It is a shame that you are unable to read 5 short paragraphs that are directly related to an issue you claim to support.

It’s a shame you ramble on and on and on and on and on and on

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

I like freakonomics episode - they are geekishly entertaining and get me to read up on various topics.

I looked that episode up and remember it. That episode was frustrating.
The economist did what many seem to do and a claim was made that is true, but lacks meaning- that wealthy pay more. What wasn't discussed and is often ignored is how the higher taxation impacts a 1%er vs a 30%er.
And there was discussion about how middle class in America pays less than elsewhere. But if elsewhere offers more servies, then it isn't an even comparison and it is disingenuous to claim middle class America pays less.

I’m not against the top 1%ers paying more but it’s just not the answer that the general middle class person that screams it at rallies thinks it is.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Exactly. Episodes 626 of Freakonomics is a great listen. Spoiler it’s a really good tax lesson from a trans who worked for the Heritage Foundation.

 

[paindonthurt]

Even if you tax billionaires the math doesn’t math.

The elephant in the room is to properly fund the government with all the programs and spending you’ve got to tax the middle class even more and nobody is going to do that.

Are you serious ?

how about we spend less?

 

[Dawgg]

They are taxed.
They contribute to 50% of all tax revenue. Probably closer to 60%.

This is why we don’t take you all seriously and call you stupid. You can’t do basic math.

Where are you getting your data?

Keep in my I said billionaires with a “b”, not millionaires with an “m”. I know spelling isn’t your strong suit.

 

[paindonthurt]

Where are you getting your data?

Keep in my I said billionaires with a “b”, not millionaires with an “m”. I know spelling isn’t your strong suit.

So you wanna tax people on their wealth and not their income?