The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Someone needs to explain that to those who live government entitlement check to government entitlement check. Most of us work and money is taken from us to provide to those who don't work, so I shed no tears when they point out their HD TV isn't a 1080p and their food stamps can't be used to buy booze, nor do I buy into their rants that capitalist (people who work hard) are stealing from them and keeping them poor.

It's either work or live in poverty, now lean forward and move on.

Change a few words and you could be talking about the Obamas......lol !

A black kid asks his mother, “Mama, what’s a Democracy?”

“Well, son, that’s when white folks work every day so we can get all our benefits, you knows, like free cell phones, rent subsidy, food stamps, welfare, school breakfasts and lunches, free healthcare, utility subsidy, and the list goes on and on, you know.”

“But mama, don’t the white people get pissed off about all that?

“Sure they do, son, and that’s when you yell racism, that makes them feel bad and they give us more stuff.”

^^^^^^^Apparently another example of an "awesome" Republican joke.
I recognize the defining characteristics of thinly veiled bile and utter lack of wit.

The bitter, unsuccessful people on almost all forums tend to be liberals.

That's why they want to increase the taxes on successful people.

Apparently another example of an "awesome" Republican joke.

Why do you think it's intended to be a joke? It's a "real" example of the culture that's alive which keeps blacks in poverty. The example provided is spot on.

RealJustme wrote:

Apparently another example of an "awesome" Republican joke.

Why do you think it's intended to be a joke? It's a "real" example of the culture that's alive which keeps blacks in poverty. The example provided is spot on.

The same thing can be said about what keeps whites in poverty.

So what's your point other than trying to be a troll???

About 73 percent of black kids are born out of wedlock.

Black kids commit crimes at 10 times the rate of whites.

Yet the grievance industry, with Sharpton and Jackson and Obama, spend their time blaming the chaos on white racism.

The same thing can be said about what keeps whites in poverty.

Yes there are whites that also have the entitlement mentality and also play the victim roll.

It seems that the posters are forgetting the huge numbers in this country that work every day AND live in poverty. Amazingly, I didn't read in the posts anything about the CEOs that make millions and millions every year (even millions and millions every day) with huge severance packages. Remember Nardeli, Home Depot CEO? Drove Home Depot stock down 50%, was fired and left with a severance package totalling $287 million. Back to the subject of the post, approx. 24% of full-time workers earn wages below the poverty level (Bereau Of Labor Statistics.)

It seems that the posters are forgetting the huge numbers in this country that work every day AND live in poverty

The sad part is even they give up part of their money for those living on entitlements rather than working. If there weren't so many people on entitlement the working poor would be able to keep more of their hard earned money. But at least the working poor pay very little Federal taxes, it's the middle class who have done everything by the book and worked their asses off to get there that are really being screwed by our system.

Amazing...
RealJustme here advocating for doing away with veterans' pensions and his own Social Security check.




(Of course, what our illiterate RealJustme doesn't understand is the meaning of the word "entitlement".)

Amazing...
RealJustme here advocating for doing away with veterans' pensions and his own Social Security check.

See that's an example of a liberal not under standing the difference between earning something and getting something they didn't earn. They don't know the difference! They compare someone who served 20 or more years in our military or working 40 or more years receiving earned pensions as the same as an illegal on welfare.

See, that's an example of a knee jerk conservative who is illiterate and hasn't a clue what simple words mean.


"entitlement"
Look it up, Bozo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

See, that's an example of a knee jerk conservative who is illiterate and hasn't a clue what simple words mean.
"entitlement"
Look it up, Bozo.

Entitlement means something that has been "earned" Such as a pension plan you've paid into for 40 years, or a pension for 20 years of military service. Liberals believe entitlements are something they are "owed" even if they haven't earned it. You were easy to set up on this one, I knew you would bite :lol: :lol: :lol:

^^^^^^He's on the internet with an endless supply of knowledge at his fingertips but still doesn't know how to educate himself.

Like I said, a conservative.
Just tragic.

There is a grain of truth (just a very small grain) to what Justme says. There is a lot that we all can do for ourselves if we only try. This weekend I completed my winter garden; 50 lettuce plants (loosehead,) 50 broccoli plants, 100 spinach plants, 100 collard green plants. A lot of good eating for less than $5. I grow anbout 30% of my own food. The only debt I have is the car for my granddaughter (she's making the payments.) I run my life like I want the Federal Government to run their affairs; frugally. I wonder how many have never considered growing a portion of their food? I wonder how many have never tried to conserve on the energy they use; therby saving them money? I wonder how many wouldn't even consider public transportation if it was available. For anyone needing advice on energy savings there is an excellent website called http://www.builditsolar.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. This site is huge; it would take you months to go through every page. It also has plans for greenhouses from $50 up. The energy saving ideas are massive and often cost free.

Enough of the rant. With the Internet today there is so much information out there that there are ample opportunities to make your life easier and more comfortable.

Snakeoil, most conservatives share you're values of being as self-sufficient as possible...but I can't imagine a liberal feeling the obligation to put forth an effort to obtain what they feel is owed to them. I assure you, your post emplying people have responsibilities to put forth effort to improve their lives, really pissed of the Clown and other liberals

Justme-My theory is that there is nothing wrong with giving the citizens what they want IF we pay for it. I doubt that many of those entitlements would be around if the citizens were properly taxed to pay for them. The reason we are in this mess we are in now is that we used our Federal Government credit card too much. The bills just came due and we are a bit short this week. You want an new entittlement? Let's see what it will cost...Do you still want it if I have to raise your taxes a $100 a week?

You want an new entittlement? Let's see what it will cost...Do you still want it if I have to raise your taxes a $100 a week?

I'm with you 100%, the only problem with that is those who would profit the most from the new entitlement currently have very little skin in the game when it comes to raising the taxes needed to pay for it...so they will say go for it. That's why this Country needs a flat consumption tax where everyone has skin in the game and the rich lose their tax right offs, they want to buy a two million dollar boat they pay huge taxes on it that can't be written off as a business expense to entertain clients. When it come time for everyone to vote on a new entitlement, everyone knows they will be paying something out of their own pockets...so how bad do you want it?

As it is now the Middle Class is carrying a disproportionate load.

All of the dreadlocked, wannabe organic, suburban homesteader little goofballs always think that they are doing something special by gardening and putting up a few jars for the winter. I don't think they realize that self sufficiency has been a way of life for the same people they insult in "fly over" country as traditional Americans. They think they need to teach everybody else how to take care of themselves. At least they are starting to get a clue.

They are great for a laugh though.

:lol:

All of the dreadlocked, wannabe organic, suburban homesteader little goofballs always think that they are doing something special by gardening and putting up a few jars for the winter.

Look at Michelle Obama's photo op vegetable garden at the White House. She had landscapers plow over roses and other plants planted by President Lincoln and several other Presidents and their wifes, the landscape plowed under was part of our history, each President had added either a tree or plants...all plowed under so Obama could take pictures of "her" accomplishment. Besides the destruction of a part of our history how much has it cost the tax payers for her photo ops? Anyone who thinks Michelle actually maintains or eats the vegetables from the garden would believe a briefing by Susan Rice.

Yeah there are lot goofballs who pretend their organic gardens is really an effort to grow their own food, Michelle is one of them.

Even in technical terms, Clowhicker is wrong.

If a person has enough quarters of coverage, is the appropriate age, etc., that person can be entitled to Social Security.

An entitlement is different from eligibility.

The former is earned, the latter is merely some federal handout.

If a person has enough quarters of coverage, is the appropriate age, etc., that person can be entitled to Social Security.

Bingo, it's an earn entitlement because the person has paid into it with a promise they will receive a pension if the terms are met. Social Security isn't a handout if all terms have been met by the person receiving it. Housing assistance, food stamps, etc are handouts!

"An entitlement is different from eligibility.
The former is earned, the latter is merely some federal handout."-johnforbes

"Bingo, it's an earn entitlement because the person has paid into it with a promise they will receive a pension if the terms are met. Social Security isn't a handout if all terms have been met by the person receiving it."-ReallyDimwitted

^^^^^And there it is, these two clowns defining an entitlement to be something that is earned.
Now let's look at what started all this.

"The sad part is even they give up part of their money for those living on entitlements rather than working. If there weren't so many people on entitlement the working poor would be able to keep more of their hard earned money."-RealJustme

He says veterans benefits and Social Security are ("Bingo") entitlements.
He makes it quite clear he thinks that housing assistance, food stamps, etc aren't entitlements, but handouts.
I say I'm surprised he's calling for doing away with entitlements for veterans and himself.
He criticizes those living on entitlements rather than working (veterans, elderly) as, essentially, being dead weights on the working poor.
Both these clowns want to curtail entitlements even as they claim entitlements are earned.
These typical conservative clowns have their heads so far up their asses they don't know whether they're coming or going.
And RealJustme says liberals don't understand? :lol:

Clownhick, your post doesn't make an iota of sense.

Yes, veterans earned their pensions and thus -- in terms of legal terminology -- are entitled to them.

People are merely eligible for food stamps, by way of contrast.

Mitt Romney characterized government payouts to the citizenry as "entitlements"

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opi ... 52076252/1

Regardless of the steaming rhetorical bullshit propagated by the neocons, approximately 90% of the people who receive "entitlements" are either; working, elderly, or disabled...

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677#_ftn2

He criticizes those living on entitlements rather than working (veterans, elderly) as, essentially, being dead weights on the working poor.

Where did I say that? You compared military veterans and people who have paid into Social Security as receiving handouts just as those didn't earn it; I disagreed, they earned those entitlements. Food stamps, housing allowance, etc isn't earned, it's handouts. Veterans and those drawing their earned Social Security checks should not be lumped to gether with those receiving handouts the haven't earned.

Here's where you said it, moron
"The sad part is even they give up part of their money for those living on entitlements rather than working. If there weren't so many people on entitlement the working poor would be able to keep more of their hard earned money."-RealJustme

"those living on entitlements rather than working" are veterans and elderly, among others who earned it.
That's your own definition of entitlements, not mine.

"O wise one, your post doesn't make an iota of sense."-johnfop

Of course it doesn't make any sense.
It's YOUR argument. I just used your definitions to take your position to their logical conclusions, and you say it doesn't make sense.

Well, I agree. You're an idiot.

Young Mr. Clownhick, calm yourself.

If I ever buy a yacht, I shall hire you to swab the deck.

Once again johnforbes can't refute what I said so he posts a dumb comment on the wrong thread instead.

Imagine his legal work.
Whenever he can't refute an argument he simply distracts with nonsense.
Pity his suckered clients.

Clownhick doesn't know the difference between "entitlement" used in the technical fashion, as distinct from eligibility, and the use of "entitlement" in the conversational sense.

In the general conversational sense, the word "entitlement" is used in budgetary discussions to refer to many things lumped together.

However, as I took the time to note above, there is a tecnical difference between "entitlement" and "eligibility."

These sorts of nuances, which are familiar to anybody in Washington or anybody with a decent education, are too complicated for Clownhick.

On the plus side, Clownhick will always have secure employment swabbing decks.

50% of the population works and has money taken from them by the government from every paycheck.

50% of the population doesn't work and has money given to them by the government from every taxed paycheck.

Some statistics show that those who don't work would have to secure a job that pays over $60K to replace what they are 'given' to them by the government.

Where is the incentive to go out and get a job that only pays minimum wage?

They would be losing over $40K in government handouts.

The government needs to tighten the strings of handouts to the same pay as a less than minimum wage job.

That would surely give those takers an inventive to go out and get a job and become tax paying citizens.

No pity or sympathy for those who take and do not contribute unless they are 95% disabled and wheel chair bound.

'Survival of the fittest' and 'thinning of the herd' is what's needed if you are to survive in the world today, yesterday and tomorrow.

:?

'Survival of the fittest' and 'thinning of the herd' is what's needed if you are to survive in the world today, yesterday and tomorrow.

We have people like Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama and Rev Wright who reversed evolution in the black communities and have turned every predominantly black city into jungles over ridden by ape like behavior. It really should be a crime for what they done and what they're doing to black communities.

50% of the population works and has money taken from them by the government from every paycheck.

50% of the population doesn't work and has money given to them by the government from every taxed paycheck.

Some statistics show that those who don't work would have to secure a job that pays over $60K to replace what they are 'given' to them by the government.

Where is the incentive to go out and get a job that only pays minimum wage?

They would be losing over $40K in government handouts.

The government needs to tighten the strings of handouts to the same pay as a less than minimum wage job.

That would surely give those takers an inventive to go out and get a job and become tax paying citizens.

No pity or sympathy for those who take and do not contribute unless they are 95% disabled and wheel chair bound.

'Survival of the fittest' and 'thinning of the herd' is what's needed if you are to survive in the world today, yesterday and tomorrow.

Wow.

TTT bitches.

Look at Michelle Obama's..vegetable garden at the White House. She had landscapers.........

Exactly.

:lol:

More than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

But disability applications go up with unemployment.

And a seriously troubling increase in disability recipients has accompanied the Obama Admin.

More than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work.

Your quoting a guy who starts of his article denouncing conservatives :lol: He also claims:

The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population.

:lol:

Yeah sure the top 1 percent are receiving food stamps, Obama phones and welfare checks at eight times the rate of the poor:lol: The guy who wrote that article is a loon.

RealJustme is too stupid to understand that the super rich don't mess around with the petty cash. They go for the real money.

Why would they want food stamps or cheap phones?
But the welfare checks? They cheerfully accept them in denominations of a million dollars or more.

That RealJustme doesn't understand that the rich get far more welfare than the poor shows he's the real loon.

That RealJustme doesn't understand that the rich get far more welfare than the poor shows he's the real loon.

Well I can name welfare the poor are receiving can you name the welfare the rich are receiving?

Plus the top 1% pay 30% of all taxes, but your article says they "receive" 60% of taxes :lol: :lol: :lol:

Top 1 percent

Average income: $1.4 million.

Average tax bill: $514,144.

Average tax rate: 35.5 percent.

Share of federal tax burden: 30.2 percent.

"Well I can name welfare the poor are receiving can you name the welfare the rich are receiving?"-RealJusme

I really don't expect RealJustme to understand this because he doesn't read, but here are a few examples:
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-sp ... tatistics/

No wonder you're so misinformed Clown. Look what you use for reference

About $59 billion is spent on social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.

Your source says only $59 billion is spent on social welfare program. The amount is actually $1.03 trillion, yes TRILLION.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/repor ... -trillion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now don't you feel like a silly goose.

59 billion was spent on food stamps

1.03 trillion was calculated by adding federal + state (745.84+282.7)

The conservative claim is 745.84 but it was never itemized and they can include anything.

And no, Justme would never take anything out of context............

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'd really like to know what welfare the rich get.

If ya have any money at all, your effective tax rate -- fed, state, local, etc -- bids fair to be 50 percent.

Many, like me, who set up a business in what turned out to be a more and more tax-unfriendly jurisdiction are constrained to buy a second house in another state for tax reasons.

"The CBO report confirms previous studies. A report from the Corporation for Economic Development (CFED) shows that asset building policy in the U.S. disproportionately benefits highest earners. In 2010, the U.S. government spent $400 billion on asset building policies that help families buy homes, start businesses, and pay for post-secondary education. Unfortunately the CFED report found that 53% of all subsidies went to the top 5 percent of taxpayers—those with incomes higher than $160,000. The top fifth of taxpayers—those with incomes greater than $80,000—received 84% of the benefits, with an average subsidy of $5,109 per taxpayer. The average asset subsidy awarded to households making more than $1 million was nearly $96,000. In contrast, the bottom 60% of taxpayers (those making $50,000 or less) received only 4% of the benefits, and the bottom fifth of taxpayers (incomes of $19,000 or less) received 0.04% of benefits, amounting to $5 on average for each taxpayer.

All of this data point to the conclusion that our government does not necessarily spend too much on the poor: it spends too much on the rich. It forgoes trillions of dollars in revenue so that the rich can continue accumulating wealth and widening the wealth gap. To actually fight poverty, we must redirect our country’s income tax exclusions, deductions, preferential tax rates and tax credits away from the wealthy and towards those who actually need it."
(July 24, 2013 by Karen K. Harris)

With so much data all over the internet, there is not enough time to decipher it all and come to a valid conclusion on where the real thieves are, the rich, the poor or the politicians.

If you really want to see welfare at work, look no further than our politicians at all levels of government.
They don't really work and they definitely don't live in poverty. They come in as part of the top 10% and leave as one of the top 1%. All supported by tax dollars at every turn and every luxury they can get their grubby little hands on.