It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debt Ceiling: Why Not Cut Off The Welfare Checks Too?

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
Reply to post by 0001391
 


They're nothing but stupid #ing retards that by their posts, must live posh lives where they can look down on others. I call bull# because they're just another group of blinded, hateful,POOR sheep that have would pull the lever on each other.


Shame on you, ATS for cultivating such bull#!!!!


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Classy! real classy even unedited F bombs and derogatory use of the "R" word. Good stuff as usual. Alert Alert Alert

Clearly someone edited this post because the real words are showing up in my reply. This whole post should have been trashed.
edit on 20-7-2011 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
More white people are on welfare fyi. Just saying OP also stop being a racist, and get a life.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Welfare is such a very small amount of the budget, that it makes no difference at all. But we pay a lot for social security and the military.

But I find it very curious that you're angry at Obama about who will or will not get paid. First,it's the Republicans that are holding the country hostage. And more importantly, you do realize that there are laws that establish the rules on who gets paid what in case of a government shutdown? It has nothing to do with what the president does or does not want to do.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Agreed. Any post that you disagree with should be censored, heavily.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Spoken like a true Republican, OP.

You want to cut off the funds for the poorest members of society while ignoring the tax cuts for the richest.

This is the problem with Washington, they too want cuts cuts cuts but aren't willing to give up anything that might affect their reelection chances.

They want the debt crisis, largely caused by (a) unfunded tax cuts, (b) two unfunded wars and (c) unfunded bank bailouts to be paid for by the poorest members of society, instead of by the richest.

I'm all for spending cuts, but these MUST be accompanied by tax increases. When households are in debt, spending must be cut at the same time as revenue is raised. This is the same for Governments.

To address the issue of whether it should be $1, $3, $4, or $6 trillion over 10 years, until they start talking about $28 trillion in spending cuts and revenue gained through increased taxes or new revenue streams in the next 10 years, they're not being serious about cutting the deficit.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Thank You!! Just illuminating an off topic and offensive rant that has no place on ATS. T&C's will confirm that. You want low brow posts like that, hang out on YouTube.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


If you feel it is in violation of the T and C, you could use the 'alert' function instead of whining about it and then being off topic yourself. Thats what its there for.

Just a constructive suggestion.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


I did!! and the post got wiped. Just tired of inane and counterproductive posts like that aim only to derail legitimate debates and threads. I am also offended by the pejorative use of a certain word that begins with "R". Thanks Again!



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


Of course its all about the vote. This gent began running for President the day he was elected to the Senate and has been running for reelection the day after he was sworn in.

Obama has a few solid voting blocks. The poor, minorities, hard left and unions. Seniors are split on him and this fear mongering on social security is merely an attempt to shore up part of that elderly constituency who will actually believe that the Republicans are forcing his hand. Polls show that he is losing steadily among seniors. If he loses them, he's toast and he knows it.

Aside from that, if he were to cut the welfare checks he would piss off the folks he will need to rely on to vote multiple times, stuff ballot boxes, illegally register illegals, electioneer and stand at polling places waving galvanized pipes around intimidating voters. He won't do that - that kind of anti-democracy business is the bread and butter of the democrat party and is good for at least 3 points in the general election.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Oh geez, another knee jerk reaction from someone that missed the entire point of the.initial post.
Again, I never stated that welfare checks should be cut, I am simply asking why doesn't Obama treat group A the same way he is treasting group B?

You must be punctuationally challenged because you conveniently chose to ignore the fact that the thread title ends with a question mark.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Oh geez, another knee jerk reaction from someone that missed the entire point of the.initial post.
Again, I never stated that welfare checks should be cut, I am simply asking why doesn't Obama treat group A the same way he is treasting group B?

You must be punctuationally challenged because you conveniently chose to ignore the fact that the thread title ends with a question mark.

Cuz Obama has no juice over group A? I thought we had that covered.




top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join