Poll Finds Broad Bipartisan Support For Tax Package

[S0S]

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302373.html?hpid=topnews)

About seven in 10 Americans back the tax deal negotiated last week by President Obama and congressional Republicans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

[Dude!]

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302373.html?hpid=topnews)

About seven in 10 Americans back the tax deal negotiated last week by President Obama and congressional Republicans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.


good...
let's get 'er done!

[spoon]

Probably bc most people are idiots.

[Snacks]

Obama is pissing me off. He is now working with the enemy when they wouldnt work with him. How can 7 out of 10 Americans be that stupid? They do know this will not help the majority of them?

[Squeezix_Wing]

Probably bc most people are idiots.
Yes that's it. Most people prefer anal tax rape as opposed to being able to pay for their homes.

Stop it.

[epo]

Most of the package is fine with the very strong exception of the high end tax cut extension. Trickle down economics didn't work in the 80s and it doesn't work now.

But fuck it, this is what America voted for on Election Day, the GOP fucking them in the ass.

[spoon]

Most of the package is fine with the very strong exception of the high end tax cut extension. Trickle down economics didn't work in the 80s and it doesn't work now.

But fuck it, this is what America voted for on Election Day, the GOP fucking them in the ass.

I'd say that's a HUGE part of what I voted AGAINST in 08 and 10. Yet perhaps less funds is the way to digging out of this as those poor rich people don't give a little more back as they continually fuck all these workers they "hire" with all the extra money. I can't wait until the economy comes back a little after the holidays and the claims pour in that it's bc of the tax cuts that helped so much the first time through. I see what, $50 more in my paycheck bc of it while guys like Gates (who thought the cuts were a joke) and others like him who severely need the help right now save HUGE sums of money and put it all into hedge funds and or sit in accounts across the country collecting more money for those pour souls. I'm glad we started first by bailing out the right side of the economic scale here in terms of businesses and now people.

[spoon]

Yes that's it. Most people prefer anal tax rape as opposed to being able to pay for their homes.

Stop it.

Right, those poor millionaires were really being put out paying those taxes in the past and lost all 4 of their homes. Wait what?

It's like the estate tax bullshit Fox, Ant and conservatives spin making people think it really has some effect on US. It was set up right in the past before that idiotic PAWN W made the changes.

[TripleSkeet]

Obama is pissing me off. He is now working with the enemy when they wouldnt work with him. How can 7 out of 10 Americans be that stupid? They do know this will not help the majority of them?

I have no problem believing that many people are stupid. Im betting most of them thought Obama wanted to just raise everyones taxes. How the fuck can people be dumb enough to not realize all this bill did was give a break to the rich? It didnt effect the poor or middle class one iota. Im at the point where I really feel the US has turned into Rome and its time to burn this bitch down and start over.

[spoon]

I have no problem believing that many people are stupid. Im betting most of them thought Obama wanted to just raise everyones taxes. How the fuck can people be dumb enough to not realize all this bill did was give a break to the rich? It didnt effect the poor or middle class one iota. Im at the point where I really feel the US has turned into Rome and its time to burn this bitch down and start over.

UFC is our gladiator battles too. Burn it down indeed, starting with the douches in office.

[Dude!]

obama is now a
supply-sider

[pennington]

obama is now a
supply-sider

Check out this temper-tantrum (is it racist?):

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UuzVr4z" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UuzVr4z" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[Crispy123]

I don't feel like giving a tax break to the rich is bad. I just hate the fact that these same people bitch about welfare & entitlement programs and they are fighting to get tax breaks on inheritance.

This is an entitlement program! These kids did nothing except be born and they expect to get their parents money and not have to pay tax for it? Bullshit!

[spoon]

Check out this temper-tantrum (is it racist?):

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UuzVr4z" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hd6UuzVr4z" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

tantrum, racist? really?

[A.J.]

"Change".

Right.

[pennington]

tantrum, racist? really?

Tantrum? A judgment call.
A tantrum is an emotional outburst that is typically characterized by stubbornness, crying, screaming, defiance, angry ranting, a resistance to attempts at pacification.

A tantrum may be expressed in a tirade: a protracted, angry, or violent speech.

Racist? Isn't that what we usually hear when someone questions the president? I'm just wondering.

[Zorro]

I don't feel like giving a tax break to the rich is bad. I just hate the fact that these same people bitch about welfare & entitlement programs and they are fighting to get tax breaks on inheritance.

This is an entitlement program! These kids did nothing except be born and they expect to get their parents money and not have to pay tax for it? Bullshit!

So what you're saying is that if you work hard all your life to provide for your kids when you die just because you were successful at what you did you should have to give it away?

[foodcourtdruide]

Racist? Isn't that what we usually hear when someone questions the president? I'm just wondering.

No.

[Zorro]

Most of the package is fine with the very strong exception of the high end tax cut extension. Trickle down economics didn't work in the 80s and it doesn't work now.

But fuck it, this is what America voted for on Election Day, the GOP fucking them in the ass.

No they for voted responsibility...they voted knowing that what you put on the credit card today has to be paid for tomorrow...they voted knowing that the stimulus wasn't a stimulus but a propping up of already overspending state governments. What their going to get is more deficits, more BS and an eventual paying of the piper they hope never comes. The only difference between a Democrat and a Republican is which "bundler" you sit down to dinner with.

All of us that voted for Obama expecting a new type of governance were lied to. What we got was an inept White House that allowed Pelosi/Reid to run roughshod over legislation. Break the promise of transparency and use the old if its broke thow money at it solution.

In my 50 years on the planet I have never been as disillusioned as I am today...and I lived through Carter and Regan.

Having said all that I really do believe that the individual Senators/Congress people are true believers and want to do good, but like that old Alan Alda movie they just get sucked into the vortex of the system.

[Crispy123]

So what you're saying is that if you work hard all your life to provide for your kids when you die just because you were successful at what you did you should have to give it away?

So what youre saying is that oil & car company executives and Bank Officers are successful?

Cause what Im saying is (again), that the people inheriting it did nothing to receive this money. The same argument these rich people give for not allowing people to receive welfare.

[Zorro]

So what youre saying is that oil & car company executives and Bank Officers are successful?

Cause what Im saying is (again), that the people inheriting it did nothing to receive this money. The same argument these rich people give for not allowing people to receive welfare.

Why is it your business how they got their money and more importantly why is it your right to take it away. I have spent the last 15 years of my life working 12-15 hour days to make sure that my family has the things I never did. And I weary of people like you who think that when I die you're entitled to 55% because my heirs "never did anything". Instead of envying what's not yours and taking from others how about you figure out where your opportunities are and seize upon them.

[Crispy123]

Why is it your business how they got their money and more importantly why is it your right to take it away. I have spent the last 15 years of my life working 12-15 hour days to make sure that my family has the things I never did. And I weary of people like you who think that when I die you're entitled to 55% because my heirs "never did anything". Instead of envying what's not yours and taking from others how about you figure out where your opportunities are and seize upon them.

oh my god! Dont weary of me. please no.

[Jujubees2]

Wall Street bonuses may top last year’s as earnings soar (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40681578/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/)

Let's see that trickle down thing work now...

[Zorro]

Wall Street bonuses may top last year’s as earnings soar (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40681578/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/)

Let's see that trickle down thing work now...

Well when your best buddy is the Treasury Secy and Orszag takes an awesome job at Citi would you expect anything less?

[Pitdoc]

Why is it your business how they got their money and more importantly why is it your right to take it away. I have spent the last 15 years of my life working 12-15 hour days to make sure that my family has the things I never did. And I weary of people like you who think that when I die you're entitled to 55% because my heirs "never did anything". Instead of envying what's not yours and taking from others how about you figure out where your opportunities are and seize upon them.

As I understand it, this inheritance tax doesnt even kick in until after 5 million. So, yes ,boo fucking hoo to their impoverished heirs. M/Billionaires who paid tax lawyers big money to not pay ANYTHING close to what they should pay are finally ponying up. So far as I know, not ONE of the people who pay this tax has complained yet ( of course, they're all dead ) . It's the cost of living in a country that allowed you to make all that money.If you don't like, it, try making the same money in a different country.

[Zorro]

As I understand it, this inheritance tax doesnt even kick in until after 5 million. So, yes ,boo fucking hoo to their impoverished heirs. M/Billionaires who paid tax lawyers big money to not pay ANYTHING close to what they should pay are finally ponying up. So far as I know, not ONE of the people who pay this tax has complained yet ( of course, they're all dead ) . It's the cost of living in a country that allowed you to make all that money.If you don't like, it, try making the same money in a different country.

Ahh the politics of envy...

Current rates for 2011
Lower Limit Upper Limit Initial Taxation Further Taxation
0 $10,000 $0 18% of the amount
$10,000 $20,000 $1,800 20% of the excess over $10,000
$20,000 $40,000 $3,800 22% of the excess over $20,000
$40,000 $60,000 $8,200 24% of the excess over $40,000
$60,000 $80,000 $13,000 26% of the excess over $60,000
$80,000 $100,000 $18,200 28% of the excess over $80,000
$100, 000 $150,000 $23,800 30% of the excess over $100,000
$150,000 $250,000 $38,800 32% of the excess over $150,000
$250,000 $500,000 $70,800 34% of the excess over $250,000
$500,000 $750,000 $155,800 37% of the excess over $500,000
$750,000 $1,000,000 $248,300 39% of the excess over $750,000
$1,000,000 $1,125,000 $345,800 41% of the excess over $1,000,000
$1,125,000 $1,500,000 $448,300 43% of the excess over $1,250,000
$1,500,000 $2,000,000 $555,800 45% of the excess over $1,500,000
$2,000,000 $2,500,000 $780,800 49% of the excess over $2,000,000
$2,500,000 $3,000,000 $1,025,800 53% of the excess over $2,500,000
$3,000,000 and over $1,290,800 55% of the excess over $3,000,000

[Pitdoc]

Ahh the politics of envy...

Current rates for 2011

I stand corrected........( though I thought the NEW rates kicked in after 5 mil)

STILL not high enough

[Crispy_Mobile]

I stand corrected........( though I thought the NEW rates kicked in after 5 mil) STILL not high enough

hey buddy, don't you know that when poor people get free money its an "entitlement program" and when the wealthy do it its called capitalism?

[Zorro]

hey buddy, don't you know that when poor people get free money its an "entitlement program" and when the wealthy do it its called capitalism?

"Take Don't Create"

[Bob Impact]

hey buddy, don't you know that when poor people get free money its an "entitlement program" and when the wealthy do it its called capitalism?

Precisely how are they getting free money in this equation? By not having it taken from them?

[Recyclerz]

Ahh the politics of envy...

Current rates for 2011
Lower Limit Upper Limit Initial Taxation Further Taxation
0 $10,000 $0 18% of the amount
$10,000 $20,000 $1,800 20% of the excess over $10,000
$20,000 $40,000 $3,800 22% of the excess over $20,000
$40,000 $60,000 $8,200 24% of the excess over $40,000
$60,000 $80,000 $13,000 26% of the excess over $60,000
$80,000 $100,000 $18,200 28% of the excess over $80,000
$100, 000 $150,000 $23,800 30% of the excess over $100,000
$150,000 $250,000 $38,800 32% of the excess over $150,000
$250,000 $500,000 $70,800 34% of the excess over $250,000
$500,000 $750,000 $155,800 37% of the excess over $500,000
$750,000 $1,000,000 $248,300 39% of the excess over $750,000
$1,000,000 $1,125,000 $345,800 41% of the excess over $1,000,000
$1,125,000 $1,500,000 $448,300 43% of the excess over $1,250,000
$1,500,000 $2,000,000 $555,800 45% of the excess over $1,500,000
$2,000,000 $2,500,000 $780,800 49% of the excess over $2,000,000
$2,500,000 $3,000,000 $1,025,800 53% of the excess over $2,500,000
$3,000,000 and over $1,290,800 55% of the excess over $3,000,000


What is this supposed to be for - estate tax or regular income tax? I don't think it is correct for either.

[Crispy123]

Precisely how are they getting free money in this equation? By not having it taken from them?

one person is giving money to another. or the estate is giving it to them.

[Bob Impact]

one person is giving money to another. or the estate is giving it to them.

First, an inheritance is not capitalism. Second, one is a voluntary exchange of money, the other isn't.

[Crispy123]

First, an inheritance is not capitalism. Second, one is a voluntary exchange of money, the other isn't.

Yes 100%. Very good!

[Syd]

Breaking from my liberal cohorts, I'm not really in favor of the estate tax. It's hiding the cost of government and double dipping. If the government needs more tax money, they need to tax the actual fucking income to begin with.

[Snacks]

Breaking from my liberal cohorts, I'm not really in favor of the estate tax. It's hiding the cost of government and double dipping. If the government needs more tax money, they need to tax the actual fucking income to begin with.

I agree. If you were already taxed on the money when it was income, then when its yours you should be able to do with it as you want.

[Crispy123]

Breaking from my liberal cohorts, I'm not really in favor of the estate tax. It's hiding the cost of government and double dipping. If the government needs more tax money, they need to tax the actual fucking income to begin with.

Thats a fair argument. Normally, I would feel the same way but the fact is that an inheritance isn't income. It is a gift. And these stinkin Republitards have made such a big shit deal about poor people getting money for nothing (SSI) and how these people are socialists and drug addicts and we need to stop welfare, so fuck them.

[Dudeman]

Larry David's article in the NYTimes about the tax bill. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/opinion/21david.html?ref=opinion)

And before anybody gets their panties in a bunch about anything he wrote, don't forget that this guy also wrote a TV show about a masturbation contest and wrote this gem:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LTmHS-T5dLA" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Which reminds me, he also wrote, "Black man doin' his thing. Barack Obama motha' fucka'. Barack Obama- I'm president of hitting that ass."

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Larry David's article in the NYTimes about the tax bill. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/opinion/21david.html?ref=opinion)

And before anybody gets their panties in a bunch about anything he wrote, don't forget that this guy also wrote a TV show about a masturbation contest and wrote this gem:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LTmHS-T5dLA" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Which reminds me, he also wrote, "Black man doin' his thing. Barack Obama motha' fucka'. Barack Obama- I'm president of hitting that ass."


Whether you agree with the tax cuts or not.....

I wonder if any of these A list celebrities or Warren Buffett actually send more money to the treasury.

[Zorro]

Larry David's article in the NYTimes about the tax bill. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/opinion/21david.html?ref=opinion)

And before anybody gets their panties in a bunch about anything he wrote, don't forget that this guy also wrote a TV show about a masturbation contest and wrote this gem:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LTmHS-T5dLA" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Which reminds me, he also wrote, "Black man doin' his thing. Barack Obama motha' fucka'. Barack Obama- I'm president of hitting that ass."

Funny guy...creepy, but funny

[TripleSkeet]

Im not a fan of taxing the inheritances like they do, but seriously, there are so many ways around it, do you really think these mutil millionaires dont have this figured out already? I know people that inherited a couple hunred grand that got around paying taxes on it.

[spoon]

Whether you agree with the tax cuts or not.....

I wonder if any of these A list celebrities or Warren Buffett actually send more money to the treasury.

i love parrots

[WRESTLINGFAN]

i love parrots

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CMNry4PE93Y?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CMNry4PE93Y?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


Seriously all these uber rich billionaires love to play the violin but they use EVERY loophole possible to avoid paying extra

[spoon]

well, i do like turtles too

for once you were right WF

[Dudeman]

Whether you agree with the tax cuts or not.....

I wonder if any of these A list celebrities or Warren Buffett actually send more money to the treasury.

Seriously? That's your come back? It isn't about 1 or 10 or 100 people sending in m oney to the the treasury. To accomplish things it takes alot more people than that. It is the same reason why you're terrible argument that churches and charities can help people sufficiently. The problems are a little bigger than a few people, no matter how rich, giving money, and it takes more than the local churches to deal with societies ills.

[spoon]

Seriously? That's your come back? It isn't about 1 or 10 or 100 people sending in m oney to the the treasury. To accomplish things it takes alot more people than that. It is the same reason why you're terrible argument that churches and charities can help people sufficiently. The problems are a little bigger than a few people, no matter how rich, giving money, and it takes more than the local churches to deal with societies ills.

Ur so wrong, Mother Theresa stopped Aids. Didn't you hear?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Seriously? That's your come back? It isn't about 1 or 10 or 100 people sending in m oney to the the treasury. To accomplish things it takes alot more people than that. It is the same reason why you're terrible argument that churches and charities can help people sufficiently. The problems are a little bigger than a few people, no matter how rich, giving money, and it takes more than the local churches to deal with societies ills.

Yes it is pony up bytchezzz. If they feel they should pay more than they are free to do so.

As far as private charity being better than government? Here it is


http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html

"Private efforts have been much more successful than the federal government's failed attempt at charity. America is the most generous nation on earth. Americans already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. In fact, more than 85 percent of all adult Americans make some charitable contribution each year. In addition, about half of all American adults perform volunteer work; more than 20 billion hours were worked in 1991. The dollar value of that volunteer work was more than $176 billion. Volunteer work and cash donations combined bring American charitable contributions to more than $300 billion per year, not counting the countless dollars and time given informally to family members, neighbors, and others outside the formal charity system.

Private charities have been more successful than government welfare for several reasons. First, private charities are able to individualize their approach to the circumstances of poor people in ways that governments can never do. Government regulations must be designed to treat all similarly situated recipients alike. Glenn C. Loury of Boston University explains the difference between welfare and private charities on that point. "Because citizens have due process rights which cannot be fully abrogated . . . public judgments must be made in a manner that can be defended after the fact, sometimes even in court." The result is that most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or other goods and services without any attempt to differentiate between the needs of recipients."

[Dudeman]

Yes it is pony up bytchezzz. If they feel they should pay more than they are free to do so.

As far as private charity being better than government? Here it is


http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html

"Private efforts have been much more successful than the federal government's failed attempt at charity. America is the most generous nation on earth. Americans already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. In fact, more than 85 percent of all adult Americans make some charitable contribution each year. In addition, about half of all American adults perform volunteer work; more than 20 billion hours were worked in 1991. The dollar value of that volunteer work was more than $176 billion. Volunteer work and cash donations combined bring American charitable contributions to more than $300 billion per year, not counting the countless dollars and time given informally to family members, neighbors, and others outside the formal charity system.

Private charities have been more successful than government welfare for several reasons. First, private charities are able to individualize their approach to the circumstances of poor people in ways that governments can never do. Government regulations must be designed to treat all similarly situated recipients alike. Glenn C. Loury of Boston University explains the difference between welfare and private charities on that point. "Because citizens have due process rights which cannot be fully abrogated . . . public judgments must be made in a manner that can be defended after the fact, sometimes even in court." The result is that most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or other goods and services without any attempt to differentiate between the needs of recipients."

Seriously? You've got to be joking?

-A charity is going to go investigate an allegation of child abuse instead of Child Protective Services?

-A charity is going to inspect the structural integrity of bridges to make sure they don't collapse and kill people?

-A charity is going to inspect a mine shaft or factory to make sure the hard working "real" Americans aren't being subjected to unsafe working conditions?

-A charity is going to make sure contaminated food or drugs don't make it onto the market killing innocent people?

-A charity is going to provide serivces that make sure mentally ill homeless individuals take their vital daily medications to make sure they are on the street as a danger to themselves and other innocent individuals?

All of those services are currently underfunded. And that's all you've got? Charities and the power of the free market are going to solve all of the country's ills? You continue to show how divorced you are from the real world and the problems of real word people.

[epo]

Yes it is pony up bytchezzz. If they feel they should pay more than they are free to do so.

As far as private charity being better than government? Here it is


http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html

"Private efforts have been much more successful than the federal government's failed attempt at charity. America is the most generous nation on earth. Americans already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. In fact, more than 85 percent of all adult Americans make some charitable contribution each year. In addition, about half of all American adults perform volunteer work; more than 20 billion hours were worked in 1991. The dollar value of that volunteer work was more than $176 billion. Volunteer work and cash donations combined bring American charitable contributions to more than $300 billion per year, not counting the countless dollars and time given informally to family members, neighbors, and others outside the formal charity system.

Private charities have been more successful than government welfare for several reasons. First, private charities are able to individualize their approach to the circumstances of poor people in ways that governments can never do. Government regulations must be designed to treat all similarly situated recipients alike. Glenn C. Loury of Boston University explains the difference between welfare and private charities on that point. "Because citizens have due process rights which cannot be fully abrogated . . . public judgments must be made in a manner that can be defended after the fact, sometimes even in court." The result is that most government programs rely on the simple provision of cash or other goods and services without any attempt to differentiate between the needs of recipients."

Don't ever reference the Cato Institute around me again and expect to be taken as a credible person.

[Dudeman]

Don't ever reference the Cato Institute around me again and expect to be taken as a credible person.

second

[spoon]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_X5qyzcTiZEo/S2h12dPfEdI/AAAAAAAAAO8/-f-GAJQc_Wo/s320/kato-kaelin-0001.jpg

Hey, fuck you both!

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Seriously? You've got to be joking?

-A charity is going to go investigate an allegation of child abuse instead of Child Protective Services?

Child Protectiver services? You cant be that serious!!!

-A charity is going to inspect the structural integrity of bridges to make sure they don't collapse and kill people?

What happened in Minnesota a few years ago?

-A charity is going to inspect a mine shaft or factory to make sure the hard working "real" Americans aren't being subjected to unsafe working conditions?

With all these regulations accidents STILL HAPPEN

A charity is going to make sure contaminated food or drugs don't make it onto the market killing innocent people?

Have you read about toxins in our drinking water-

-A charity is going to provide serivces that make sure mentally ill homeless individuals take their vital daily medications to make sure they are on the street as a danger to themselves and other innocent individuals?

Government hosptials are such a success story haaa

All of those services are currently underfunded. And that's all you've got? Charities and the power of the free market are going to solve all of the country's ills? You continue to show how divorced you are from the real world and the problems of real word people.


The government sucks money out of the private sector and it goes into a giant rat hole with no accountability. If funds are misappropriated there are no consequences. Your precious social security program has been raided to go into the general fund and there is no trust fund. Just a bunch of IOUs. All these programs you worship like medicare, SS. FNMA Freddie Mac etc are failed programs.

In the private sector if someone has a charity and they spend the money on themselves they go to jail. In Washington they just get reelected


Government charity really isnt charity at all. Its taking money by force and having the politicians deem it out to how they feel what is appropriate. Its not cost effeicient because you need more useless government bean counters, the massive overhead. Getting government out of charity would save billions of tax dollars and return the power of giving to the people and let them choose how they want to contribute.

[Crispy123]

In the private sector if someone has a charity and they spend the money on themselves they go to jail. In Washington they just get reelected



at least you are consistently niave about EVERYTHING. Non-profits only have to be "not-for-profit" (that's very simplified but for WF purposes this works) and are certified by the BBB as "good" if they spend 65% of their money on the actual charity.

Charity Navigator (http://www.charitynavigator.org/)

[WRESTLINGFAN]

at least you are consistently niave about EVERYTHING. Non-profits only have to be "not-for-profit" (that's very simplified but for WF purposes this works) and are certified by the BBB as "good" if they spend 65% of their money on the actual charity.

Charity Navigator (http://www.charitynavigator.org/)

And whats the headline? FIND A CHARITY YOU CAN TRUST


How anyone can trust the feds shelling out money is completely insane

Ever since the govt got in the charity business poverty etc has spiraled out of control, problems have multiplied and there are more people receiving government assistance every year. You can refer to LBJs great society failure as an example

[Dudeman]

The government sucks money out of the private sector and it goes into a giant rat hole with no accountability. If funds are misappropriated there are no consequences. Your precious social security program has been raided to go into the general fund and there is no trust fund. Just a bunch of IOUs. All these programs you worship like medicare, SS. FNMA Freddie Mac etc are failed programs.

In the private sector if someone has a charity and they spend the money on themselves they go to jail. In Washington they just get reelected


Government charity really isnt charity at all. Its taking money by force and having the politicians deem it out to how they feel what is appropriate. Its not cost effeicient because you need more useless government bean counters, the massive overhead. Getting government out of charity would save billions of tax dollars and return the power of giving to the people and let them choose how they want to contribute.

YES. Child Protective Services. The agency you call when a child comes to the ER with signs of child abuse. Ever called them and have them say they don't have the time, people, and resources to follow-up in the near future on a possible case of child abuse? It isn't because they are a sucky governement agency, it is because people like you, Rand, and Ron have cut their funding.:wallbash::wallbash::wallbash::wallbash:

Your mocking of CPS (Child Protective Services) demonstrates your complete lack of connection to the real world.

Here is one state's CPS web site. Want to cut its funding? Want to have a charity do this work?
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cdssweb/pg93.htm

[WRESTLINGFAN]

YES. Child Protective Services. The agency you call when a child comes to the ER with signs of child abuse. Ever called them and have them say they don't have the time, people, and resources to follow-up in the near future on a possible case of child abuse? It isn't because they are a sucky governement agency, it is because people like you, Rand, and Ron have cut their funding.:wallbash::wallbash::wallbash::wallbash:

Your mocking of CPS (Child Protective Services) demonstrates your complete lack of connection to the real world.

Here is one state's CPS web site. Want to cut its funding? Want to have a charity do this work?
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cdssweb/pg93.htm

California, the shining star of success :wallbash:

When something is failing just throw more money at it. Thats the progressives solution for everything

[Dudeman]

California, the shining star of success :wallbash:

Yeah that really negates the fact that you mocked the need for child protective services:wallbash:

Thats all you've got? Pathetic. You mocked the need for CPS.

And here is the Texas website for their CPS:
http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/child_protection/about_child_protective_services/

and Indiana:
http://www.in.gov/dcs/2398.htm

and Missouri
http://www.dss.mo.gov/cd/can.htm

and North Dakota
http://www.nd.gov/dhs/services/childfamily/cps/

and CT
http://www.ct.gov/dcf/cwp/view.asp?a=2556&q=314388


You mocked the need for CPS, and your response to being called out was to make some trite statement about CA.

Remember you did that just in the argument of saying charities can do the work of government (whether it is state or federal).

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Yeah that really negates the fact that you mocked the need for child protective services:wallbash:

Thats all you've got? Pathetic. You mocked the need for CPS.

And here is the Texas website for their CPS:
http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/child_protection/about_child_protective_services/

and Indiana:
http://www.in.gov/dcs/2398.htm

Damn you progrssives always using emotion. I wasn't mocking CPS i was pointing out the continued practices of waste and abuse by these agencies

Read what I said. Continuing to throw money down a rathole, instead of making things efficient is your solution to everything. Whether it be CPS or education or anything else

[Dudeman]

Damn you progrssives always using emotion. I wasn't mocking CPS i was pointing out the continued practices of waste and abuse by these agencies

Read what I said. Continuing to throw money down a rathole, instead of making things efficient is your solution to everything. Whether it be CPS or education or anything else

1. No, you cited the Cato institute to say charities do better than government.

2. There is no question that comment above about CPS was mocking.

"Child Protectiver services? You cant be that serious!!!" - WRESTLINGFAN

[WRESTLINGFAN]

1. No, you cited the Cato institute to say charities do better than government.

2. There is no question that comment above about CPS was mocking.

"Child Protectiver services? You cant be that serious!!!" - WRESTLINGFAN
Yes have you seen all the abuse going on in that agency?


CPS isn't a charity its a state social service.


Yes Private charities and churches are more efficient than the Fed gov can ever be.

[Dudeman]

Yes have you seen all the abuse going on in that agency?


CPS isn't a charity its a state social service.


Yes Private charities and churches are more efficient than the Fed gov can ever be.

1. so charities and churches should investigate cases of possible child abuse?

2. and as you can see above, CPS is a state gov service, not Fed.

3. no, i haven't seen all the abuse going on in CPS agencies. I've see its funding cut.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

1. so charities and churches should investigate cases of possible child abuse?

2. and as you can see above, CPS is a state gov service, not Fed.

3. no, i haven't seen all the abuse going on in CPS agencies. I've see its funding cut.

1. CPS is a state agency not a charity.
The Church had years of child abuse and is being held accountable.


2. Agreed

3. Money doesnt solve everything.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Ok Mr Affleck what do you have to say about making exponentially more than the cameramen, best boy or Key grip?


http://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132225128/Ben-Afflect-Deals-With-Jobless-In-Company-Men#commentBlock

Gigli" Starring Ben Affleck

Net losses, inflation adjusted: $77,961,644
Total cost: $74,000,000
Worldwide theater gross: $7,266,209
Net losses (actual): $66,733,791

Affleck’s salary for the film was $12.5 million


Does he complain about the head of the Studios salary? Just askin

[epo]

1. CPS is a state agency not a charity.
The Church had years of child abuse and is being held accountable.


2. Agreed

3. Money doesnt solve everything.

Saying that churches are being held accountable for decades of child abuse is fucking laughable.

You sir, have zero credibility.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Saying that churches are being held accountable for decades of child abuse is fucking laughable.



You sir, have zero credibility.

Are you sure you were not abused?



http://www.bishop-accountability.org/


Want more accountability?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96801,00.html

Also if you noticed that there are less parishoners in the Churches. Many of them are closing or consolidating

How many people do you know go to Church every Sunday?

[Dudeman]

Saying that churches are being held accountable for decades of child abuse is fucking laughable.

You sir, have zero credibility.

the bigger issue for this thread is that that has nothing to do with what we were talking about above. we were talking about whether charities and churches can do the work of government, and WF mocked the need for CPS. he tried to move it over to church abuse to dodge his failed reasoning.

[Zorro]

the bigger issue for this thread is that that has nothing to do with what we were talking about above. we were talking about whether charities and churches can do the work of government, and WF mocked the need for CPS. he tried to move it over to church abuse to dodge his failed reasoning.

I am no fan of the governement but you couldn't get more agreement from both the left and the right that protecting its citizens is their first obligation. Some people however just pull shit out of their asses and think of it as witty commentary. Others I am convinced think of themselves as some McMahon type anti-hero and just spew shit trying to get a response. In either case it shows its neither witty nor enlightening.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I am no fan of the governement but you couldn't get more agreement from both the left and the right that protecting its citizens is their first obligation. Some people however just pull shit out of their asses and think of it as witty commentary. Others I am convinced think of themselves as some McMahon type anti-hero and just spew shit trying to get a response. In either case it shows its neither witty nor enlightening.

Can you fucking comprehend what I said about CPS? I wasn't mocking it contrary to what's been interpreted. I said that throwing money at a social service isn't going to improve it.