• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that metaphor, descriptiuve allusion and irony were beyond you.

Would it be helpful if I began to provide simplified alternative text with colorful pictures for posts I think that you are likely to attempt to read?

No. But it would be helpful if you stopped being a jackass and answered the question honestly. Which poor people took your money from you?

I have a sneaking suspicion you just don't want to answer the question because you know you and your boy Scarecrow got called on a ridiculous hyperbole and you don't like getting caught in your own **** you were flinging.
 
Oh so you aren't even being rational anymore. This really is just about charged buzzwords and idiotic partisan posturing. ;)

No, actually it's about decreasing the population of flies that spread disease and inhibit growth.

Any country that stops coddling maggots sees a decrease in flies and a consequent increase in the number of people wanting to work.

It must be a miracle.
 
Well, I certainly hope that you haven't given up! Keep trying.


Can you please provide some responses that aren't simple negations?

I have no interest in graduating from a public school as I already graduated from a private school.

Can you please answer the questions so we can find out what jurisdiction has control over these thieving poor people that robbed you so blind?
 
No, actually it's about decreasing the population of flies that spread disease and inhibit growth.

Any country that stops coddling maggots sees a decrease in flies and a consequent increase in the number of people wanting to work.

It must be a miracle.

Again, more idiotic posturing with charged buzzwords that mean little or nothing.
 
OftenCold:

What's funny is that Jallman responded to a metaphorical description with rhetorical question and seriously expects a factual answer.
 
OftenCold:

What's funny is that Jallman responded to a metaphorical description with rhetorical question and seriously expects a factual answer.

It wasn't even metaphorical. It was just stupid jackassery with no conversational value besides demeaning your own point.

Now if you raised issues like workfare over welfare and ending the welfare dependency through policy changes, we might have had a conversation. Instead, you decided to just stand there and having a pissing contest with yourself and the funniest part of all is you were dumb enough to piss against the wind. :lol:
 

That was cute. Unfortunately, I didn't happen to spot an argument contained therein. Maybe you used invisible text? :2wave:

So are you saying that I'm not paying taxes to support programs for unwed teenage mothers that had children that they can't support?

By the way, I used highly valid illustrations, not crude stereotypes.

No, quite the contrary. For example, consider Mike Males's Do Teenage Mothers Save Taxpayers Money?

If we update Hotz’s estimates to 2007 dollars and apply them to California teen birth trends, a surprising result indeed ensues. Rates of births by mothers under age 18 declined by 54% from 1991 to 2005, occasioning loud self-congratulation by various “teen pregnancy” prevention lobbies led by the Public Health Institute. Indeed, these lobbies, based on several “studies” by PHI and others that can only be called fraudulent, claimed teen mothers cost California taxpayers several billion dollars per year. They further claimed, without evidence, that their programs caused the decline in births by teen mothers and saved taxpayers money, meriting more funding for prevention lobbies.

However, the Hotz et al. analysis persuasively argues just the opposite...[t]hus—if “teen pregnancy prevention” programs actually are responsible for the reduction in teen births as they claim—then their efforts cost poorer younger mothers nearly $72 million in income and the state of California nearly $4 million in tax revenues in 2005. If the costs of the reduced teen births are apportioned over the entire 1991-2005 period, teen birth prevention has cost young mothers over $280,000,000 in income and the state $15 million in income and sales tax revenues in 2007 dollars.
 
. . . Which poor people took your money from you?
. . .

I'm literally embarrassed for you that any literate adult would need this explained. OK, I'll try.

Any person who makes a career of, or abuses any system of Public Assistance robs the taxpayers, including me. Small children can understand this with ease.

When I'm in line at the checkout with bread and hot dogs to make a dinner, and the person in front of me is purchasing fine beef, exotic fruits, and expensive seasonings but pays with food stamps, they are robbing the taxpaters.

Every legitimate inmate of a modern American hotel-prison is robbing the taxpayers.

Any recreational drug abuser getting rehab, especially outside of a jail, and using public funds to do so, is robbing the taxpayers.

Any illegal alien receiving any publicly funded service whatever, is robbing the taxpayers.

Do I need to go on? I get bored pointing out such obvious facts.
 
Last edited:
I'm literally embarrassed for you that any literate adult would need this explained. OK, I'll try.

Any person who makes a career of, or abuses any system of Public Assistance robs the taxpayers, including me. Small children can understand this with ease.

When I'm in line at the checkout with bread and hot dogs to make a dinner, and the person in front of me is purchasing fine beef, exotic fruits, and expensive seasonings but pays with food stamps, they are robbing me.

Every legitimate inmate of a modern American hotel-prison is robbing the taxpayers.

Any recreation drug abuser getting rehab outside of a jail, and is using public funds to do so , is robbing the taxpayers.

Any illegal alien receiving any publicly funded service whatever, is robbing the taxpayers.

Do I need to go on? I get bored pointing out such obvious facts.

So then...no specific poor person robbed you and took your money away. Glad we cleared that up.

Now how about we address the real beef you have and discuss the government spending policies that create these injustices you percieve. And let's do so without the backhanded swipes at each other's intelligence like big boys, mkay?
 
Do Teenage Mothers Save Taxpayers Money?

No. The government staying inside it's Constitutional boundaries saves taxpayer dollars. Those old fashioned boundaries, you know, the capitalist boundaries where the baby factory is liable for the cost and upbringing of the product line until it's ready for sale.
 
So then...no specific poor person robbed you and took your money away. Glad we cleared that up.

Now how about we address the real beef you have and discuss the government spending policies that create these injustices you percieve. And let's do so without the backhanded swipes at each other's intelligence like big boys, mkay?
First, I have indeed been robbed by a few poor people, but that was not my point. More have tried, but were frustrated in their attempts. (It is positively amazing how quickly a person can exit a building if they hear the breach on an antique shotgun close in the dark of a room they thought they were alone in.)

I have been referring to a class of people since the start here, I do not understand your demand for a specific individual.


Second, if we cannot use obvious metaphor and literary style in a forum such as this, we are lost. This is not a doctoral thesis on the empirical properties of an organic molecule. The use of such devices is evidence of respect for the intelligence of those who agree with us, and those who do not.

Third, your intelligence I have respect for-- much more so than you might suspect.
 
No. The government staying inside it's Constitutional boundaries saves taxpayer dollars. Those old fashioned boundaries, you know, the capitalist boundaries where the baby factory is liable for the cost and upbringing of the product line until it's ready for sale.

Do you happen to have an actual argument? Crazy shenanigans, I know, but still...
 
Do you happen to have an actual argument? Crazy shenanigans, I know, but still...

That is an argument.

It's not the government's job to engage in acts of "charity".

Prove otherwise.

If you attempt this, recall that charity is a voluntary act and the only tool government has is force and threats thereof.
 
That is an argument.

It's not the government's job to engage in acts of "charity".

Prove otherwise.

If you attempt this, recall that charity is a voluntary act and the only tool government has is force and threats thereof.

Reduction of tax expenditures is "charity"? I'll admit; this is certainly a new one! :rofl
 
No. I'm not arguing with you. I don't generally expect effective rebuttal when talking to an empty room.

How to save taxpayer money....hmmmm.....let's see, we can take it and spend it on things we're not allowed to spend it on, or we can let them keep it and not spend it on things we're not allowed to spend it on....hmmmmm which option would save them the most money?

No, I don't expect this audience to figger that one out, nosirree bobcat tails. It's too tricky. It would require the gentlemen in the front row to surrender their flawed preconceptions and start using their frontal lobes for a change.
 
To most of the above posts,you'all gave me a headache.

Get a refund from your college, you got ripped off.

:rofl
 
To most of the above posts,you'all gave me a headache.

Get a refund from your college, you got ripped off.

:rofl

So nothing of any intelligence to add to the thread? Noted.
 
So nothing of any intelligence to add to the thread? Noted.

Neither was the three pages before.noted

:rofl

Illegal immigration in California cost taxpayers about 10 billion a year.

How about we cut that out first,most will move out of state on their own,with no more freebies coming to them.

Then we can start welfare reform,in a sensible manner,instead of just eliminating it all together at one time.

By reducing welfare payments to lower levels,it should give incentives to people to try and get off welfare.

By allowing people to use welfare as a way to live out their lives is not a viable solution, if they start getting hungry they may think about getting a job.
 
Last edited:
Well lay something on us then, Einstein. :shrug:

Jallman, I edited my post above.

As a side note the Ca. government seems to trying to scare people with this B.S. they are talking.

They have lots of other options open to them,but they would rather try to scare the public,mainly the poor people.
 
Jallman, I edited my post above.

As a side note the Ca. government seems to trying to scare people with this B.S. they are talking.

They have lots of other options open to them,but they would rather try to scare the public,mainly the poor people.

I agree with that sentiment, wholeheartedly. If they can continue to scare the poor and the immigrants, they can keep the state blue. First thing that needs to happen in California is for the democrats to act like they are at the helm and do something besides posture to keep their vote. The Republicans need to realize that they are going to have to cooperate and press ideas rather than rhetoric and assist in setting some goals instead of throwing up roadblocks every step of the way.

Then the fat needs to be cut from the budget and some of these needless interior projects need to be put on hold. CalWorks needs to move from a welfare program to a workfare program and solve the problem of too many idle people just doing whatever they want and still getting a meal ticket. That can only have an impact of lowering crimes and the cost associated with that.

Along with all that, California needs to make some adjustment to the tax problem it has and start making it more hospitable to new businesses to create more jobs. California is horribly mismanaged because it's social works got out of hand.
 
Back
Top Bottom