BF2S Forums DAST Chat

13urnzz wrote:

Homeless man given boots is barefoot again

Shoeless NYC man isn't homeless after all



It gets better and better.

PrivateVendetta wrote:

Pennsylvania has a town called Nazareth?

and Bethlehem

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

Homeless man given boots is barefoot again

Shoeless NYC man isn't homeless after all

It gets better and better.

Okay, so technically he isn't homeless.  He's a mentally disabled veteran who panhandles on the streets.  What a scandal!

Give it some more time and you will find out the whole thing is a sham

-Whiteroom- wrote:

You are fairly depressed aren't you? glass half full type of fellow?

You have the glass states backwards.

They interviewed the photographer and officer on CBS. The person who took the photo made a point to have a portrait of her father who was an officer in the background of the interview. She went on to talk about how she was a 9/11 dispatcher and how the officer reminded her of her father who bought stuff for the homeless. she then goes on to say she mass emailed the photo to everyone in the department. The officer who bought the shoes went into footlocker and talked about what he was doing with the people in the store and then they showed him shaking hands and talking with a bunch of people in the store about what he had done. The homeless man when interviewed by another outlet couldn't explain what he did with the shoes, why he didn't have shoes, why he was homeless, or for how long.

My bullshit detector is detecting way too many coincidences and story gaps for me to take this at face value

Jay, do you honestly blame the democrats?  No new taxes is one of the few foundations the GOP actually stands for.  Economy doing good?  Tax cuts!  Economy doing bad?  Tax cuts!  Terrorist attack and two unfunded wars?  Tax cuts!  Debt crises?  Tax cuts! 

Good thing they were kicked out of office during the Depression, otherwise World War 2 might have ended very differently.

Macbeth wrote:

Jay wrote:

make him officially the worst president in history.

Shut up retard

List something, anything, good about his presidency. More debt, wants higher taxes, expanded the surveillance state, didn't close Guantanimo, expanded the war in Afghanistan, has overseen double digit unemployment rates, passed a healthcare act that makes the insurance companies richer and doesn't cover everyone and will actually increase premiums. Oh, he got rid of DADT but kept DOMA. I guess that's a positive. He deported more people in four years than Bush did in eight. His government shut down hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries. His government issues on average one regulation per hour. So... DADT. That's his great accomplishment. Oh, and his skin color is not white. Groovy.

Spearhead wrote:

Jay wrote:

Over how many years is that?

That was with data from 2009, and it's just balancing the budget for one year, not paying off the accumulated debt.

Spearhead wrote:

So realistically, what needs to happen over the next 10 years?  I know you believe we should :

Scrap social security and medicare and have welfare cover seniors instead
Stop the wars (duh)

so what else would you add to that list?  Scrap Departments of Education and Energy?  You don't think we should raise taxes to meet it halfway?

I want the military pared down to a purely defensive active force with a much larger reserve component to take up slack in time of war. Social security and Medicare could be kept, if you means tested them i.e. people with a certain level of income or assets wouldn't be able to collect. But, if you were to do that, you might as well just get rid of the programs and throw the people into Medicaid and Welfare and get rid of the unnecessary bureaucrats.

Medicare at its heart is designed to take high cost patients out of the general health insurance system and place them in government provided care instead. If you eliminated Medicare, health insurance premiums for everyone would rise, but you're paying for it either way so it doesn't really help the average American financially in any way. It just adds a layer of highly paid government bureaucrats into the system. If you added up the net for the average American if you were to get rid of the system, you should expect higher premiums, but a lower overall cost because you wouldn't have any payroll tax taken out for it.

Social security is just designed terribly and should never have been implemented the way it was in the first place. If you want to force savings for retirement, force people to contribute to a 401k plan instead of having a wealth transfer system like is currently in place.

So, I would take a big chunk out of the three main debt contributors, enough so that you could actually lower tax rates instead of raising them. Our spending is simply unsustainable on its present course.

My point with raising the tax rates to balance the budget was to make Americans feel with their pocketbook what our actual spending is instead of just piling on more debt. I don't actually want to see those higher tax rates, I don't think anyone would, and that's the point. If the Republicans were to threaten to balance the budget through taxes alone, it would perhaps make the rest of government wake up and say 'hey, maybe the path we're on really isn't the best'. It's expecting a lot, which is why it will never happen.

I agree, DoE is one of the few places where I think the federal government seriously overreached.  Let local districts pay for their own education.  If they don't want to educate their kids and teach them creationism, fine.  No one will move there and their kids will leave eventually for somewhere better.