Cool Tad! Havent seen much of that kind of art here in Omaha:)
I must agree with JuliusJones, children and cripples associated with non working SNAP users are best left to starve or steal. If they had any sense of decency at all and a true love of Fatherland, they would opt for the former. Those opting for the latter, maybe with a little redirection we have use for them after all.
OTP, don't presume to inform me of what the general public thinks of gay people, especially seeing as how you're a proud citizen of Memphis, one of the most homophobic cities in the USA. I know better than you what the general public thinks of gay people. It's my life. For you, it's just a fragment of nonsense to post on a website.
"More Limbaugher Cheese, Julius. Only one in six SNAP households is a nonworking family without kids or an elderly or disabled family member."
Love how you qualified your retort, Bruce, ... "without kids or an elderly or disabled family member".
I think we've all gone to the grocery store, passed all the newer cars taking the handicap spots and seen those illegal parkers using snap cards to purchase candy, chips, soft drinks, and expensive cuts of meat on our dimes.
Of course, that's a topic for another day, ... like whenever law enforcement decides to enforce those parking laws. I'm sure we'll have a lot of indignant hollering about targeting certain folks, which will generate an article and oodles of comments.
You forgot one point: Trading Zbo will help us tank, which should be the goal for the rest of the season.
And the fan favorite argument is silliness.
Posted by oldtimeplayer
"If the feds stopped or cut deductions for charity, you will see a drastic drop in those contributing to charity and the amounts. So, it is hard to judge weather the giving is from the heart or if it is motivated by taxes."
OTP, no one "makes money" because of their charitable contributions, they just pay less taxes. Also, it's not a 1 for 1 trade off, either. The benefit is basically their tax rate % times the deduction, up to the limit of their allowed deduction. In Romney's case it was no doubt all cash deductions.
If someone in a 28% tax bracket deducts $100K for charitable contributions, they reduce their taxes by $28K. Not a good deal for making money, huh???
Now, I seem to recall reading something about how chintzy Obama's and Bidens charitable deductions were. Do you recall that?
@Hang em high kitty,
I'd rather let ten people serve life sentences than execute ONE who was wrongly convicted. Science keeps exonerating people on death row, but shucks, accidents happen.
Equating our society or humanity or justice with our legal system is a joke.
And, when the state executes the wrong person, which it has and will continue to do, how will you get "JUSTICE" and "PUNISHMENT" against the state for murder?
Well, then, we should be religious neutral and not give tax deductions for any contributions to a church or its affiliates.
Btw, it is that same general public that fights for the rights of gays to be recognized in marriage and to not be discriminated against.
What about the bottomless pit of defense spending and corporation welfare?
I read and hear an awful lot of talk about the stuck-in-the-mud faction that decries mgmt. moves that dismantle the Griz That Were. (Which is done. It is a done deal, and never to be what it once was.)
What I don't hear about is the faction that is willing to back and adore the new team management no matter what they do.
Either extreme is ridiculous.
How did he almost cost us the Clippers series by himself? Also, what makes you think Joeger is a better coach then Hollins? He's been coach for 20 games, what specifically has he done to make you have that opinion?
OTP, how fortunate that you are a fountain of solutions! Please be sure to convey "the only thing that will make a difference" to the "feds" so that they, too, can benefit from your expertise. Don't hide that light under a bushel !!!!!!
Who is Romney? Sounds familiar, like someone who mattered yesterday. I doubt he's someone I would waste my time discussing. Whoever he was, I can't fault him for giving his money to promote his religion rather than to the "general public". The general public is a bottomless pit of need. Likewise my money wouldn't go to the "general public" but to my religion, which is fortunately superior to Romney's religion and needs less of a financial boost for prevailing over time.
You are right. The only thing that will make a difference is if the feds changed the deductions for charitable contributions.
Mitt Romney's charitable contributions are real, however, they are misleading. Mitt
Romney gave most of his money to Mormon causes and the Mormon church. There was not much giving to the general public.
If the feds stopped or cut deductions for charity, you will see a drastic drop in those contributing to charity and the amounts. So, it is hard to judge weather the giving is from the heart or if it is motivated by taxes.
I get so tired of all the comments people make about how "in the past, people were charitable and just, but now everything's gone to hell." The only difference between the present and the past that I can tell is that now poor conservatives -- aka Tea Party Patriots -- have been effectively recruited and brainwashed into championing privileges of the very wealthy, which they can never hope to enjoy. In that respect, the conservative think tanks and the radio demagogues have changed the game from what it was in past generations. I hope there are enough traditional Republicans to do something about this and that they haven't waited too long to recognize the monster they've created. And I hope, but don't expect, that once they've put the Tea Party in its place, they don't pull it out again whenever needed.
Otherwise, there's nothing significantly different between today and long ago yesterday.
GroveReb84 and Thecatsmeow
You two have lambasted this president by saying that he also kow tows to corporations and big banks. You are wrong. In fiscal matters, Obama tends to be a moderate. He realizes that corporations are good for the economy. He has always supported lowering the corporate tax rate, for giving tax breaks to certain corporations. However, unlike the gop, he is not for giving tax incentives and breaks for the sake of these corporations making a few people richer. He will give tax incentives to businesses that create jobs here in America. He is against tax incentives that allow companies to move jobs overseas. He is against giving oil companies tax subsidies for finding oil, hell, that is what those companies are in business for.
He is opposed to supply side economics because he knows from empirical data gathered over the last 50 years that it does not work. Hell, even the republicans know it doesn't work.
I ran across this article published by PhillySuburbs.com, titled, Supply Side Economics Does Not Work. I starting read, thinking that it was a partisan view of the subject. But the writer mentioned something that I didn't know. Congress has it's own study group, completely non-partisan, that it can ask for studies on certain things. These reports are not made public, however a citizen can request a copy from their congressman, it is up to them to fulfill this request.
The Congressional Reports Service did a study, requesting the effectiveness of supply side economics. The report, CRS, dated 9,14,2012, titled Taxes and the Economy. Well, Grove and thecats, you can read that congressional report on the PhillySuburb.Com website, Economics does not work, 10/25/2012 in its entirety, along with figures and graphs, etc , and conclusions.
Grove, you should like this study; it is non-partisan, shows all of the relevant figures and graphs. Please google: Supply side Economics does not work, dated, 10/25/2012.
The dismantling of the Grizzlies is an early sign of losing a basketball team. Rudy Gay, Lionel Hollins and now Zack.
THeir ratings are going down...This new coach is the pitts...The team appear to have a I don't give a darn about winning
Great work, Kevin. I support trying to reach a deal for an extension. He says he'll sign for less, let's see if that is true. Small market teams need guys that play for below market value. If he's willing to do that, I don't see how we can turn it down. If not, well then there will be tough choices ahead.
I'm not in disagreement that trading Rudy was a bad move, nor trading Zach isn't necessary, but I don't believe management has done anything to show that those moves aren't cost saving moves. Everything they have done so far has served to save money. Trading half the bench, trading Rudy, and letting go of Hollins cut cost but didn't make the team better. Until they start doing things that lead to wins, then I'm always going to be leary.
It looks like we have a volunteer!
Bubbah, it's time you called your folks.
It may take a village to raise a kid, but lets be honest here, who wants to raise a kid to be the village idiot?
By Louis Goggans
download this issue
click here to see more »