INFURIATING

[smackaholic]

chip's great great grandaddy owned some negros, so he'd rather not pass judgement.

it's just the brothas trying to shed their chains, via gubmint sponsored partying.

it ain't 40acres and a mule, but, i guess it's a start.

[Wolfman]

Wow. Big Hulk is making a guest appearance. Who would want to miss that? I gotta get me a food stamp card so I can be with the In Crowd.

[Left Seater]

I think what the ad is saying is you get in for $5 before 10:30 when showing a food stamp card.


Why if you are collecting food stamps would you be going to a club anyway? Shouldn't you be working a second job or saving every $ you could so you could get yourself off of food stamps?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Why if you are collecting food stamps would you be going to a club anyway?

Because being poor shouldn't be a prison sentence.

Oh, wait...this is America...




...nevermind.

[RossTheBoss]

Why if you are collecting food stamps would you be going to a club anyway? Shouldn't you be working a second job or saving every $ you could so you could get yourself off of food stamps?

dat straight BOOLSHIT, yo. a nigga gots ta let off steam and get crunk. i be workin 9-3 like 3 times a WEEK, yo. stop JUDGIN me, yo. I get 3fiddy a month on my food stamp card, yo, for me my baby and my baby mama. we don't waste a dime of dat shit, yo. I gots freezers full of chicken and pork chops, yo.

you just HATIN.

~da realness

[Left Seater]

Because being poor shouldn't be a prison sentence.

Wow! I actually agree with you on that statement. Therefore food stamps should be limited to 36 months. Housing assistance should be limited to 5 years.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

You really think it's okay to spend money drinking, while other people pay for your food?

Everyone's allowed to blow off a little steam once in a while.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like living in a puritanical gulag like the one you seem to be suggesting.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

But if other people are footing your food bill, maybe you shouldn't be shamelessly promoting your dependency on the largesse of those others.

I think I'm far more offended at the promotion itself than I am at any attendees.

They're not "promoting" it.

It's part social commentary, part class struggle.


The folks who thought up the ad are far more clever than you'll ever aspire to be.

[Van]

Counting on lowlifes to flaunt their shamelessness will never not be a solid marketing strategy.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Counting on lowlifes to flaunt their shamelessness will never not be a solid marketing strategy.

What a horrible thing to say about Wall St. banksters. The nerve!

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I saw some homeless starving people and it made my Big Mac taste better.

They're probably better off starving.

[Carson]

OK Sam, time to clarify this.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/art ... |Frontpage

Wilson says patrons will not be able to use their food stamps to purchase alcoholic beverages. He says he hopes the novel approach will draw people to the club.

The Rose is already known for being the bar most likely to get shot in. Carry on.

[Bizzarofelice]

by this logic, we should stop all sales of flaming hot cheetos and grape soda and peach cigarellos.

[BSmack]

I saw some homeless starving people and it made my Big Mac taste better.

Did they eat it for you?

[Carson]

Watching thugs kill each other off?

Youbetcha.

[H4ever]

Counting on lowlifes to flaunt their shamelessness will never not be a solid marketing strategy.

What a horrible thing to say about Wall St. banksters. The nerve!

RACK! Van, your thoughts? cricket.....cricket

Why do so many idolize and envy the wealth of the fucking CROOKS who have their hand in the taxpayer till and continue to operate criminally without fear of repercussions? While at the same time chastising the very thugs they love....but only when they're playing ball for dear old U?

I don't support food stamp recipients out "clubbin" in no shape or form. Maybe some do have shit jobs working for the man but still qualify for foodstamps.

[Diego in Seattle]

More to H4ever's point, I don't see anyone in this thread or any others noting how we're giving over $2 BILLION in subsidies to companies that have been setting profit records. People here throw tantrums about the poor (some probably work anyways) having a night out, but are mute about taxpayer subsidies to corporations (run by executives paid tens of millions of dollars) that rake in billions each quarter?

Think about that the next time you fill up your car.

[Carson]

Solyndra?

[BSmack]

Solyndra?

What about them? You can't make an omelet without bankrupting a chicken.

[Left Seater]

More to H4ever's point, I don't see anyone in this thread or any others noting how we're giving over $2 BILLION in subsidies to companies that have been setting profit records. People here throw tantrums about the poor (some probably work anyways) having a night out, but are mute about taxpayer subsidies to corporations (run by executives paid tens of millions of dollars) that rake in billions each quarter?

Think about that the next time you fill up your car.

Huh? What jobs are these foodstamp recipients creating? What are they doing to help our economy?

As a citizen I would much rather see a corporation get a tax break when they invest in a new plant or hire new workers. That is a much better use of my money than another handout.

Typical envy response with your fill up line. Your anger is misplaced. Oil and gas companies have some of the lowest profit margins around, despite having the most regulation and the highest costs. Why are you only pissed when you fill up your car? Do you have any devices from Apple? They bring in profits of damn near 50% on each device. What about lumber? They bring in three times what the oil and gas companies do percentage wise. What about that adult beverage you had, yep, almost three times oil and gas. Cigs, magazines, drugs, books, Coke, Pepsi, and even dying newspapers all produce higher margins than oil and gas companies.

Better yet, before you bitch about the small margin oil and gas companies make while you fill up your car, look at your state. Your freaking state charges you 37.5 cents per gallon on top of the Feds 18.4 cents per gallon. In Washington you pay 55.9 cents per gallon in taxes. The average fill up is $11.18 in taxes. Meanwhile the oil and gas companies that took the risk to find it, then had to extract it, transport it, refine it, transport it again, only to pay taxes on three of those steps, only make a profit of $1.55 on that same fill up.

Yeah, we should totally bitch about the oil and gas companies profits. X 1,000

[BSmack]

Huh? What jobs are these foodstamp recipients creating? What are they doing to help our economy?

Food stamp money gets recirculated back into the economy at a 100% rate. It doesn't get any more stimulative than that.

[Left Seater]

Helping by hurting

Can food stamps be regarded as economic stimulus? | Marvin Olasky

The Department of Agriculture in recent years has announced that every $5 billion spent on food stamps generates $9 billion in economic activity—which means that we purportedly help others by going on welfare. The Eureka Times-Standard reported that "the local economy" could be saved, "one food stamp at a time."

Newspapers uncritically accepted that figure, which originated with a 2002 study, "Effects of Changes in Food Stamp Expenditures Across the U.S. Economy." But are food stamps truly an economic stimulus? A closer look at that report shows that they are only if Washington borrows the money and increases our gargantuan federal deficit. Otherwise, they hurt the economy and increase unemployment.

First, authors Kenneth Hanson and Elise Golan concluded that borrowing by the U.S. government to expand food stamps would "allow recipients to shift cash income previously spent on food to nonfood spending, recipient households increased their spending on nonfood items by $3.7 billion."

In other words, three-fourths of food stamps made no difference in the quantity or quality of food that families had: Instead, parents would save money on food and use that money to buy other things.

Second, Hanson and Golan concluded, "If the same recession-driven increase in [food stamp] benefits is financed through increased taxes or other budget-neutral means, the stimulus effect of the increase in expenditures is dampened or even reversed." In their simulation, "Low-income households increased spending on non-food goods, but mid- and high-income households reduced spending by even more."

More money for government, but less overall household income and spending, led to less economic activity. In this scenario household income fell by $1 billion and 14,400 jobs were lost. So much for the food stamp stimulus.

[Diego in Seattle]

Huh? What jobs are these foodstamp recipients creating? What are they doing to help our economy?

Food stamp money gets recirculated back into the economy at a 100% rate. It doesn't get any more stimulative than that.

You just don't understand, Bsmack....only money spent on yachts & caviar stimulate the economy, not groceries & daily needs.

Typical republican spin...whine about the poor corporations doing so poorly while making money by the boatload (if welfare recipients received that sort of money & claimed not to get by you'd say that they need to manage their money better).

This tripe comes from the same people who say that we need corporate taxes cut to create jobs, yet with all the tax cuts in the last thirty years it should be raining jobs. Your arguments have positively FAILED.

Hey dumbshit...in order for people to buy stuff they have to have money. Who's going to hire when there's nobody other than the upper crust who can afford to buy?

[H4ever]

More to H4ever's point, I don't see anyone in this thread or any others noting how we're giving over $2 BILLION in subsidies to companies that have been setting profit records. People here throw tantrums about the poor (some probably work anyways) having a night out, but are mute about taxpayer subsidies to corporations (run by executives paid tens of millions of dollars) that rake in billions each quarter?

Think about that the next time you fill up your car.

Huh? What jobs are these foodstamp recipients creating? What are they doing to help our economy?

As a citizen I would much rather see a corporation get a tax break when they invest in a new plant or hire new workers. That is a much better use of my money than another handout.

Typical envy response with your fill up line. Your anger is misplaced. Oil and gas companies have some of the lowest profit margins around, despite having the most regulation and the highest costs. Why are you only pissed when you fill up your car? Do you have any devices from Apple? They bring in profits of damn near 50% on each device. What about lumber? They bring in three times what the oil and gas companies do percentage wise. What about that adult beverage you had, yep, almost three times oil and gas. Cigs, magazines, drugs, books, Coke, Pepsi, and even dying newspapers all produce higher margins than oil and gas companies.

Better yet, before you bitch about the small margin oil and gas companies make while you fill up your car, look at your state. Your freaking state charges you 37.5 cents per gallon on top of the Feds 18.4 cents per gallon. In Washington you pay 55.9 cents per gallon in taxes. The average fill up is $11.18 in taxes. Meanwhile the oil and gas companies that took the risk to find it, then had to extract it, transport it, refine it, transport it again, only to pay taxes on three of those steps, only make a profit of $1.55 on that same fill up.

Yeah, we should totally bitch about the oil and gas companies profits. X 1,000

I'm not understanding how such small profit margins translate into RECORD profits for oil companies especially when fuel prices inch over 3.00 bucks a gallon. Do you suppose all this barely scraping by (never mind the record profits...on record) is the reason refinery capacity doesn't keep up with demand? Supply....demand...price....profits. Yep, I'm surprised all those Exxon executives aren't on foodstamps themselves.

Cry me (and the rest of America getting bent over at the pumps) a fucking river.

[Carson]

It's (still) all Bush's fault.

Sin,

Libs with heads up their asses.

[H4ever]

It's (still) all Bush's fault.

Sin,

Libs with heads up their asses.

Worst...POTUS...ever. fuck him and he justly deserves any shit slung his way for the rest of eternity. Dude makes Obama look like a genius. Dubya was a fucking punchline used around the globe from the UK to ......I think the turtles on Galapagos Islands mocked him.

[Left Seater]

Hey dumbshit...in order for people to buy stuff they have to have money. Who's going to hire when there's nobody other than the upper crust who can afford to buy?

Clearly reading isn't your forte. When we hand out free money to "those in need" they do in fact turn around and spend it. However, it turns out that those whose money is actually being spent, ie the tax payers, they reduce their spending by more than the free hand outs.

As for your question who is going to hire? Prolly the government. They are about the only one who can when taxes are increasing and government is expanding. You can rail all you want on tax breaks and lower taxes not leading to jobs, but you clearly have no idea what it takes to run a business. Every dollar I spend in taxes is one more dollar I can't spend on existing employees or a new employee.

But since you know what it takes to run a business please tell me how myself and other small business can hire when taxes are increasing?

[Left Seater]

Do you suppose all this barely scraping by (never mind the record profits...on record) is the reason refinery capacity doesn't keep up with demand? Supply....demand...price....profits.

Come on H4ever, you are smarter than this! The large oil and gas companies refine far more than they produce here in the US. They would love to increase their refining capabilities here, but it can take 20 plus years to get a new refinery approved, built and operating.

The environmental review itself kills the vast majority of refineries before they even get to the design stage. Those that do survive the EPA and Sierra Club lawsuits then have to fight the NIMBY idiots. Just so you know no new refineries have been built in the US in over 25 years. Capacity of course has increased but that is due to "creep" at existing facilities. Expansion of existing facilities can't go on for ever.

On top of that the EPA and others have mandated changes continually in the past few years. The low sulfur diesel of 2007 required Billions of retooling of refineries to meet this requirement. Today the EPA and environmentalist are pushing for limits on benzene in gas. If successful the EPA will cause another refit/retooling of all refineries. Estimates put this cost near $47 Billion.

What is next? More states and cities putting limits on refining? California will not allow any expansion of refining at any of the current facilities in the state. They also will not allow tankers to dock at California ports. Nor will the state allow any increase in generation capacity at any of the fossil fuel powered electricity plants. As more states follow this lead, the refining output will continue to fall. This will further consolidate the refining capacity to the Gulf Coast states which are vulnerable to hurricanes.

At the same time yet another "green" energy company has failed with the bankruptcy filling yesterday of Solar Trust. They stopped getting money from Solar Millennium AG a German Solar Company also in bankruptcy. Solar Trust also had Dept of Energy loan guarantees of $2.1 Billion.

Where is the outrage over this?

[Left Seater]

So many statistics show that the rich have an ever-increasing share of the wealth in our country, yet Republicans argue that the billionaires and millionaires need more tax breaks in order to create more jobs.

Since they already hold the wealth at historic levels -- the top 400 richest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of America, 150 million people -- it seems that they would already be able to create those jobs, if that argument was valid.

Apples to grandfather clocks Jsc.

Individuals don't create jobs, companies do. I don't personally create a new job, my company does. When the economy goes in the crapper, I and the company cut back on spending. I am saving at a higher rate today than I was in 2007. So is my company. As taxes increase my saving will continue to go up. This has the effect of my wealth increasing. Again same for my company.

Also, as the mindset of welfare continues to change we will see more of this divide. If there isn't any incentive to stop receiving the handouts the dependence will grow. This just continues to grow the gap.

[Left Seater]

I am the middle class.


As for the taxes on the ultra wealthy, what should they be paying in taxes? What percentage should they pay?

[Left Seater]

More than they are now. Taxes should be progressive, not regressive. If you make more money, you should be taxed at a higher rate.

If you are considering a flat tax rate as regressive then I couldn't disagree more.

If I am successful and earn more why should my tax rate increase? If the tax stays flat despite my success I am still paying more money. At some point a progressive tax leads to cap on success. Why should I continue to work hard and grow my company if you will just take more of my success? It then is to my advantage to stop working and to just live off of investments. How does that help the economy or the tax collected?

Now I could support an additional small tax on earners above a certain level but only if the monies collected went to pay down the debt and there was a cap on deficit spending.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...yet Republicans argue that the billionaires and millionaires need more tax breaks in order to create more jobs.

But they do create more jobs...






...in India.

[Left Seater]

Yes, a flat tax is regressive. I think billionaires and millionaires should be taxed at a higher rate than you and me, and I think we should be taxed at a higher rate than those in poverty.

So do you think those in poverty should at least pay something?

If you were a millionaire, would you still feel the same way?

[Left Seater]

Sure, everyone should pay taxes.

We agree on that part.


It is also very easy for many Millionaires to say they support a higher tax rate because many of them don't earn traditional wages. Very few of them are actually earning pay checks of multiple millions. Investment income isn't taxed the same way.


But what do you feel the highest tax rate should be? 40% 50% 75% ?

[Derron]

Sure, everyone should pay taxes.

We agree on that part.


It is also very easy for many Millionaires to say they support a higher tax rate because many of them don't earn traditional wages. Very few of them are actually earning pay checks of multiple millions. Investment income isn't taxed the same way.


But what do you feel the highest tax rate should be? 40% 50% 75% ?

Stop trying to confuse Jsc..it is that investment income thing that he has a hard time getting a grip on..you know when you invest money, it likely creates or supports jobs..he just don't get it..

[Trampis]

Around my parts every November they have Farm Subsidy Daze, where all the local businesses advertise for all the farmers to spend there farm welfare, which is typically paid out in November.

Its a good time to stock up on Wrangler jeans and ammo.