I get conservative guys point about public assistance

Page 22 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Your "Both Sides!" routine is just white knighting for the greedy Rich. It's not like the current system renders them not-Rich. It actually makes them richer on an ongoing basis, even with the crocodile tears shed on the balance sheet.

The Fraud! & Waste! that white knights go on about are merely impediments to economic hoarding at the top.
Look at you using the BSDI (Both Side Do It) argument yourself. As I already pointed out to Woolfie, this thread is about welfare queens, yet you want to argue about billionaires too by claiming they BOTH do it.

Apparently you aren't keen on swallowing your own medicine, Jhhnn. Physician, heal they self.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Look at you using the BSDI (Both Side Do It) argument yourself. As I already pointed out to Woolfie, this thread is about welfare queens, yet you want to argue about billionaires too by claiming they BOTH do it.

Apparently you aren't keen on swallowing your own medicine, Jhhnn. Physician, heal they self.


And the GOP doesn't care about the most vulnerable Americans as much as they care about billionaire tax cuts-

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...blasts-gop-senate-bill-tax-cut-rich-health-c/

The top 400 filers get $33B in tax cuts- They're the Welfare Queens in the current scenario.

It's not like Both Sides! can buy off Congress either. Poor people don't have any money & their low voter participation rate makes 'em a non-factor.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
And the GOP doesn't care about the most vulnerable Americans as much as they care about billionaire tax cuts-

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...blasts-gop-senate-bill-tax-cut-rich-health-c/

The top 400 filers get $33B in tax cuts- They're the Welfare Queens in the current scenario.

It's not like Both Sides! can buy off Congress either. Poor people don't have any money & their low voter participation rate makes 'em a non-factor.

Don't be silly, conservatives coined welfare queens as a euphemism for denigrating black people without using the n word.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
And the GOP doesn't care about the most vulnerable Americans as much as they care about billionaire tax cuts-

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...blasts-gop-senate-bill-tax-cut-rich-health-c/

The top 400 filers get $33B in tax cuts- They're the Welfare Queens in the current scenario.

It's not like Both Sides! can buy off Congress either. Poor people don't have any money & their low voter participation rate makes 'em a non-factor.
"Do as I say, not as I do."

So disingenuous. So is the BSDI argument valid or not, Jhhnn?

btw, for the clueless in here, the BSDI argument doesn't imply that they do the exact same thing, or at least it hasn't in the past; just that both sides engage in some sort of similar nefarious practices, like screwing over the government, or people. But I wouldn't doubt that some of those making the BSDI argument now want to shift the goal posts. Go ahead and try, gents. It'll be a hoot to see you try to waffle on this ridiculous claim that you all invented

So let's compare. How much do the top 400 inject into the economy? Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, Bezos, Zuckerberg? That's not to mention that many of the top 400 are liberals as well, and philanthropists.

Now, how much money does the lowest 5% of poor people inject into the economy?

Do you know when you are asking stupid questions, Jhhnn? It's when someone points out that you are making stupid observations.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
"Do as I say, not as I do."

So disingenuous. So is the BSDI argument valid or not, Jhhnn?

btw, for the clueless in here, the BSDI argument doesn't imply that they do the exact same thing, or at least it hasn't in the past; just that both sides engage in some sort of similar nefarious practices, like screwing over the government, or people. But I wouldn't doubt that some of those making the BSDI argument now want to shift the goal posts. Go ahead and try, gents. It'll be a hoot to see you try to waffle on this ridiculous claim that you all invented

So let's compare. How much do the top 400 inject into the economy? Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, Bezos, Zuckerberg? That's not to mention that many of the top 400 are liberals as well, and philanthropists.

Now, how much money does the lowest 5% of poor people inject into the economy?

Do you know when you are asking stupid questions, Jhhnn? It's when someone points out that you are making stupid observations.

Please. It's easy for Rich Repubs to screw over poor people. Witness current efforts. The notion that poor people are screwing over rich people is ridiculous.

I mean, rich people are still Rich, right? Despite the oh so oppressive taxation they suffer...

The top 1% of income has basically doubled since 1980- I didn't notice the 1% suffering back then, either, even when they paid higher taxes than recently.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Please. It's easy for Rich Repubs to screw over poor people. Witness current efforts. The notion that poor people are screwing over rich people is ridiculous.

I mean, rich people are still Rich, right? Despite the oh so oppressive taxation they suffer...

The top 1% of income has basically doubled since 1980- I didn't notice the 1% suffering back then, either, even when they paid higher taxes than recently.
Again, you make the moronic assumption that rich people must be Repubs. Do you care to poll the political leanings of the 400 you have such disdain for?

You can jerk off others with your BS, Jhhnn, but I don't fall for it. But maintain your stance of dominance. It will serve to make you look like even more of an idiot in the process.

Please, continue....
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
btw, I've done my homework. This isn't going to turn out well for you guys.

But go ahead and try. It's going to be a lot fun owning you morons.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
And liberals smugly pointed out that most people on welfare are white.

Your point?

Those aren't the ones the klan party get riled up about.

btw, I've done my homework. This isn't going to turn out well for you guys.

But go ahead and try. It's going to be a lot fun owning you morons.

Characteristically worthless degenerate blustering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azuma Hazuki
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
The Klan. That has nothing to do with anything said in in here. What's next, you cite Nazis? It would be typical of morons like you in here.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Again, you make the moronic assumption that rich people must be Repubs. Do you care to poll the political leanings of the 400 you have such disdain for?

You can jerk off others with your BS, Jhhnn, but I don't fall for it. But maintain your stance of dominance. It will serve to make you look like even more of an idiot in the process.

Please, continue....
I'm waiting, Jhhnn. Please prove that most rich people are Repubs, as you continue to insist.

Back up your blustery bs.

Oh, wait, you can't back that up. Damn, haven't you been completely hoisted by your own petard?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Again, you make the moronic assumption that rich people must be Repubs. Do you care to poll the political leanings of the 400 you have such disdain for?

You can jerk off others with your BS, Jhhnn, but I don't fall for it. But maintain your stance of dominance. It will serve to make you look like even more of an idiot in the process.

Please, continue....

I never offered that assumption. Rich Democrats don't own the Repub party. They're not flogging the politicians they support for tax cuts at any price to society.

Rich Repub donors are obviously a different story. The kind of avaricious greed demonstrated is almost incomprehensible. They covet every last penny they pay in taxes. It's not like their lifestyles will change from getting a 5% tax cut, is it?

But do go on defending that kind of mind set.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azuma Hazuki
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
White nationalists, aka the klan, love to refer to black people as welfare queens. That's who the term was made for.
And this is why frequently I refer to you as AgentIdiot.

The term was actually coined by a Pulitzer prize winning journalist from that bastion of white nationalism, The Chicago Tribune.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...an_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html

But thanks for injecting your ignorance into this thread for all to plainly see.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
I never offered that assumption. Rich Democrats don't own the Repub party. They're not flogging the politicians they support for tax cuts at any price to society.

Rich Repub donors are obviously a different story. The kind of avaricious greed demonstrated is almost incomprehensible. They covet every last penny they pay in taxes. It's not like their lifestyles will change from getting a 5% tax cut, is it?

But do go on defending that kind of mind set.
Proof that rich Republicans are "flogging" politicians to obtain some ultimately insignificant (to them) tax cut?

Your hatred is running rampant, Jhhnn. You should see someone about that.

And speaking of hatred, someone in here recently mentioned Stornfront. It got me thinking about racial commentary. Now imagine this - Imagine if I went off the rails with hatred about rich Black people. For that matter, imagine if I went off the rails about poor Black people. And it doesn't have to be Black people. Hypothetically it could be Latinos or Asians.

So why are people allowed to go off the rails about rich White people or poor White people in P&N with impunity? It's still racist. It's racist as hell. That's when I realized that P&N is Stormfront Lite for some lefties in here. The racial targets are changed, but the hate is the same. So why is racially-based hate permitted in this place, regardless of the target? It's still racism, regardless.

Just a thought for the race baiters in here like AgentOaf and a few others.

Some of the very same peeps that frequently levy charges of racism need to check themselves.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Meanwhile, Rich Repub donors are flogging their lackeys for tax cut cash-

http://www.newstimes.com/news/polit...nservative-network-fears-closing-11246429.php

The lackeys, in turn, have to beat the cash out of America's most vulnerable citizens. Only a few seem to have any qualms about it.
One guy? That your proof? Oh wait, the Koch brothers? Is that pronounced "cock?"

Lololol.

btw, it looks like the GOP isn't going to support the current bill anyway since even more in the GOP are falling away from supporting this bill, but continue to bang the drums of hatred, Jhhnn. Feel free to look just as stupid as AgentIdiot in the process.
 
Last edited:

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
And this is why frequently I refer to you as AgentIdiot.

The term was actually coined by a Pulitzer prize winning journalist from that bastion of white nationalism, The Chicago Tribune.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...an_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html

But thanks for injecting your ignorance into this thread for all to plainly see.

No, it's just a fact that piece of shit white nationalists like yourself made the term a euphemism for blacks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen
"The idea of welfare fraud goes back to the early-1960s, when the majority of known offenders were male.[5] Despite this, many journalistic exposés were published at the time on those who would come to be known as welfare queens. Readers Digest and Look magazine published sensational stories about mothers gaming the system.[5] Additionally, Ronald Reagan employed the trope of the "Welfare Queen" in order to rally support for reform of the welfare system. During his initial bid for the Republican nomination in 1976, and again in 1980, Reagan constantly made reference to the "Welfare Queen" at his campaign rallies."

Perfectly explains why your ilk are also fans of mexicans=rapists and muslims=terrorists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azuma Hazuki

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
One guy? That your proof? Oh wait, the Koch brothers? Is that pronounced "cock?"

Lololol.

btw, it looks like the GOP isn't going to support the current bill anyway since even more in the GOP are falling away from supporting this bill, but continue to bang the drums of hated, Jhhnn. Feel free to look just as stupid as AgentIdiot in the process.

The article names several sources. More articles of similar nature can be found with a quick Google.

The network finances the Teahad, as well.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
No, it's just a fact that piece of shit white nationalists like yourself made the term a euphemism for blacks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen
"The idea of welfare fraud goes back to the early-1960s, when the majority of known offenders were male.[5] Despite this, many journalistic exposés were published at the time on those who would come to be known as welfare queens. Readers Digest and Look magazine published sensational stories about mothers gaming the system.[5] Additionally, Ronald Reagan employed the trope of the "Welfare Queen" in order to rally support for reform of the welfare system. During his initial bid for the Republican nomination in 1976, and again in 1980, Reagan constantly made reference to the "Welfare Queen" at his campaign rallies."

Perfectly explains why your ilk are also fans of mexicans=rapists and muslims=terrorists.
From the very same link, from the very next paragraph, which you so conveniently omitted, surely by accident: /rolleyes

The term was coined in 1974, either by George Bliss of the Chicago Tribune in his articles about Linda Taylor, or by Jet Magazine.[6] Neither publication credits the other in their "Welfare Queen" stories of that year.
And you're probably way too young of a self-centered punk to have even the first idea of what Jet magazine was.

btw, your diatribe was awesome. I've been looking for years for the perfect example of an unhinged liberal, foaming at the mouth and losing their mind by going completely off the rails. Your rant ticked all the boxes. It deserves to be in the debate dictionary to demonstrate everything that lefties should avoid in a response.

Congrats on your awesome achievement. /thumbsup
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
The article names several sources. More articles of similar nature can be found with a quick Google.

The network finances the Teahad, as well.
Except it comes from a questionable source that isn't exactly mainstream media. Besides that:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...are-plan/ar-BBDqzWP?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartanntp

"At the same time the 3.8 percent tax on the wealthy was being done away with. That's not an equilibrium that to me is appropriate. That's not a tradeoff that's appropriate. That's not an equation that is appropriate," Corker told reporters Wednesday, following a meeting with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Under the draft Senate bill, healthcare subsidies would be tied to the cheapest ObamaCare plans that cover about 58 percent of costs. Under current law, these subsidies are tied to plans that cover about 70 percent of costs.

That means that, under the draft, people using subsidies to get insurance would either have to pay more in premiums to keep the plan they have now or have a higher deductible to keep their premiums in line.

"If you look at the way the draft was created, they took a step backward," Corker said.

"They get less subsidy" and bigger deductibles, according to Corker.

"That's a situation that has got to be rectified. My sense is there is a way for that to be rectified," Corker said.

"It's something that's important to me that lower income citizens have the ability to actually purchase plans that give them healthcare or insure them and I know there are other members that have expressed the same," he added.
Damn those evil GOP bastards.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
From the very same link, from the very next paragraph, which you so conveniently omitted, surely by accident: /rolleyes

And you're probably way too young of a self-centered punk to have even the first idea of what Jet magazine was.

btw, your diatribe was awesome. I've been looking for years for the perfect example of an unhinged liberal, foaming at the mouth and losing their mind by going completely off the rails. Your rant ticked all the boxes. It deserves to be in the debate dictionary to demonstrate everything that lefties should avoid in a response.

Congrats on your awesome achievement. /thumbsup

Hardly any surprise this is the same argument typically made by fans of the n-word or any number of racial slurs that it wasn't for racists because it had some other connotation previously:

"The Oxford English Dictionary traces the first English use to 1577, "the Nigers of Aethiop", translated from the Spanish los negros in Ethiopia. Other early spellings attested include "nigor" and "Nigre"; the first spelling of "great person" is in 1608. The OED offers as its first definition "Used by people who are not black as a relatively neutral (or occasionally positive) term, with no specifically hostile intent" and notes that early citations "expressing patronizing views, reflect underlying attitudes rather than a hostile use of the word itself".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.