Third World Skeptical Kid

Third World Skeptical Kid Meme | SO IF I WORK, I HAVE TO PAY TAXES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT IF I DON'T WORK, THEN THE GOVERNMENT PAYS ME? | image tagged in memes,third world skeptical kid | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
27,519 views, 260 upvotes, Made by WayneUrso 9 months ago memesthird world skeptical kid
Third World Skeptical Kid memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
23 ups, 2 replies
. | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
7 ups
Very true!
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
putin holding baby donald | I TWUST HIM KGB, ALL THE VWAY | image tagged in putin holding baby donald | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Who needs intelligence agencies and security when you got a brain safe in Moscow?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Ancient Aliens Meme | MAN CCOULD NEVER OF BUILT THE PYRIMADS, THEN WHO? ALIENS | image tagged in memes,ancient aliens | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
3 ups
Ancient Aliens Meme | WHO CAN FLY TRILLIONS OF MILES TO GET HERE BUT CAN'T MAKE CONCRETE? ALIENS | image tagged in memes,ancient aliens | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
[deleted]
14 ups, 2 replies
Confession Bear Meme | I'M JUST HERE TO READ THE COMMENT WARS | image tagged in memes,confession bear | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
6 ups
*grabs shotgun* I am ready
reply
1 up
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
reply
12 ups, 2 replies
Yep. And when you look at those who pay income taxes, there are far more people riding in the wagon, than there are of people pulling the wagon.
reply
11 ups, 2 replies
reply
[deleted]
10 ups, 2 replies
I was watching the news yesterday and a congresswoman was bashing Trump's new tax plan. By what she was saying I think she comes from a state that considers anyone not on some kind of state or federal program "rich."
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
In my country, everyone is on a program because George Osborne is taking all da jerbs
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Redecks: dey terk our jerbs
Mexican: finders keepers
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Not just Mexico... People from all over the world are taking jobs from Americans...
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Especially illegal immigrants and weeaboos
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
She must be from Utah....everybody there is wealthy....or a self sufficient survivalist! :D
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Then why hasn't the system collapsed?
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Didn't he stabalize the dollar and strengthen it? Or was that his evil twin?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
stabilize*
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
You mean by doubling the national debt?
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Via TARP or 2 still continuing unpaid for wars? Ya betcha.
Although, as you know, under Obama such expenditures went down, as did the RATE of goverment spending - the most rapid decline since the end of WWII.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
The rate huh? That sounds like someone was reaching for a way to make it sound like Obama was doing something right. The national debt doubled. Sounds to me like he just wasn't using government funds to do good for the country. I guess that counts as spending less.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You really don't know about who is responsible for ToxicAssetsReliefProgram and the 2 wars we've been fighting for closing in on 2 decades now?

CONGRESS sets the budget and decides on the hows and whats of spending. Not the President, which includes the current freak show in Office.

Ever hear of the Great Recession? Who prevented it from becoming the next, and Greatest, Depression?

Maybe look things up before babbling about what you don't know, which obviously you still haven't?
1 up
You realize preventing the Great Recession started with the Bush administration don’t you? The Obama administration policies slowed down the recovery by making more people dependent on government welfare instead of incentivizing businesses to hire more people.
reply
2 ups, 6 replies
How could that be true if our nation debt doubled?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
And WWII was still a'happenin when Truman became President.

Great Recession. HIT THE GOOGLE SWITCH!

Does anyone in America have a memory not dictated to them by some loudmouthed, sweaty, metabolically challenged, pain meds addicted, 'non'-kkk *wink* imbecile screaming "FAKE MSM! FAKE MSM!" on YouTube?

It's called a brain. Use YOUR own, folks. The Good God of Light, Satan, gave us some pomegranate ta do so. He sacrificed his limbs for it even.

"Hey, so how's the weather over there today?"

"I dunno, lemme see what Alex Jones told me it is"
1 up
i.imgflip.com/2001mc.gif (click to show)

It's to bad we didn't have 4 more years of your Muslim homie. Maybe then we could have seen an actual depression.
reply
1 up, 3 replies
No. I addressed that already. He chaired the fastest growth since the end of WWII. Of course, recovering from the brink of a depression and from a war with our economy the only one in the world intact will yield 2 diff results.

AGAIN, Afgan, Iraq, and TARP. Those were at 1 trillion apiece when he entered office, and those wars continue to this day. The Stimulus, which added another trillion, was his baby, Saved yer job and all the cops, firemen, teachers, etc, where you live.

He never engaged us in the Syrian civil war at all. Not even drones.

Yes, by decimating Al Queda, he left a vacuum filled by former Iraqi generals and soldiers Bush abandoned after dismantling their army who then proceeded to start ISIL.

Carter froze all Iranian assets held in American banks in response to the Hostage Crisis, including that of private citizens (which was illegal for him to do so of the latter, btw). THAT was the money RETURNED to them, NOT US Gov't aid, THEIR pivate mullah.

He wired no such money. Pakistan has been a recipient of American aid since it's inception. Bush increased it under the guise of helpng us combat the Taliban, which is actually HQ'd in Pakistan and is a proxy army of them. Trump was suposed to cut this off, yes?

Ronald Reagan essentially created Al Queda by giving Bin Laden 1.5 billion $$ to do so as a proxy army against the Soviet invasion of Af*ganistan. The funding continued AFTER they left.

"A Mosque in Munich" - buy it, read it. The Nazis started the ball rolling as a tool to use against the USSR in WWII by destabalizing it's Central Asian Muslim satellites by stirring up nationalism and an Islamic fundamentalist identity/resurgence. They started the Islamic Brotherhood. Later, the US and the UK continued this as a bullwark against the spread of Socialism and Nasserism (Half of Yemen was Commie Republic, and Pres Nasser wanted to estbalish a pan-Arab state, which Egypt and Syria joined. We didn't want this).

WE started this. WE made them into terrorists for OUR purposes. Now WE reap what WE had sown. Ever wonder why there was no such terrorism prior? Yup.

(I wonder if those Muja defenders here might dare look it up, at least they'll learn the basis of what they pretend to claim. Funny, I argue with them, but I can make em dizzy with facts proving THEM right.)

Please check the NYSE growth over the last decade. To claim it made a huge jump just because someone was elected and before entering office is nonsense.
1 up
The largest economic growth since ww2. Jack that's just a lie. I won't blame you though fake news is everywhere. ;)
Once again, Bush was not a good president. Neither was Obama, so this blame Bush trip you're on has no bearing on the fact that Obama was just as bad, imo, worse.
Excuse me he gave Palestine a Farwell gift on his way out.
https://nypost.com/2017/01/24/obama-sent-palestine-221m-hours-before-leaving-office/
I was wrong, it wasn't Pakistan, it was much worse. :/
WE started this?! See this is where you and I have differing philosophies. I DIDN'T START ANYTHING. You can blame yourself if you choose, but I had nothing to do with supporting terrorism.
Shit. Hitler had it right, he wanted the jews extinct, Islam is the perfect philosophy to achieve this. Not to mention what plans he had for the Muslims after his final solution was achieved. :D
But you're beginning to get off topic, so if you could just sit still i can teach you something about basic economics.
1 up
Dont allow yourself to believe that obummers great economic know how finally caused a staggering bump IN NOVEMBER. The same month trump was inaugurated.
After every recession/depression the economy ALWAYS gets a little better. The slow economic growth we experienced during the Obama administration makes it seem like he had his foot on the break the entire time.
Try again Jack. <3
0 ups
"No. I addressed that already. He chaired the fastest growth since the end of WWII. Of course, recovering from the brink of a depression and from a war with our economy the only one in the world intact will yield 2 diff results."

What part of, "recovering from the brink of a depression and from a war with our economy the only one in the world intact will yield 2 diff results." did you not understand?

Because of WWII, The industrialized world (and some not so industrialized) was decimated. Ours was untouched and booming.

Digging out from what almost the biggest depression ever is an entirely different thing.
Young Arnold Pumping Iron is a helluva a lot different from old fat Arnold trying to get in competition shape. Comprende?
reply
1 up, 3 replies
Dismissing partisan politics only to continue by endorsing one and maligning the other is illogical.
Revisioning historical occurences along such party lines may suit a particular narrative with a vested interest, but it doesn't alter facts.

Me? I can argue against me better than anyone can. Being versed in multiple sides of an argument and being aware of its nuances and the reality that nothing is a lopsided chunk of chisled granite (except statues and masonry) is the only way to truly understand of things.

Obama didn't fire and rehire CIA and FBI agents.

Congress has been looking the other way on Trump's Executive Order popcorn machine fest, but since those have tended to gotten nixed by the courts, do you need me to explain how much the darkie ya loath could have gotten away with? Although he finally had to resort to threatening to do so just to get those useless farts to actually do their jobs.

The stock market dipped just last week.

Incentives to send jobs oversees has been a hallmark of Republican legistlation. Tax cuts, even grants to build factories and infrastructure to help out corporate bigwigs, you know, the benficiaries of the new tax bill.
1 up
I just calls em like I sees em jack.
He absolutely fired many intelligence officials and retrained them on how to not offend Islam. This is common knowledge.
Lol.
That's the deal. Establishment republicans are basically democrats.
Bill Clinton Nafta. Nuf said.
http://rense.com/general76/cclle.htm
I'll keep giving you charts and sources. You keep giving me CNN.:)
1 up
I'm going to get some sleep. I will concede that I'm happy we can have a conversation without to much animosity.
So thank you.
1 up
I don't know if you meant to reply to yourself but I just say this. Was wondering where you went.

I don't know what you're smoking, but Obama's economy was really really bad.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/02/obamas_economy_is_bad_clintons_would_be_worse_130445.html?_escaped_fragment_=
reply
1 up, 4 replies
Afgan War - Bush
Iraq War - Bush
TARP - Bush
+ Propaganda aside, spending SKYROCKETS under Republican Presidents way higher than Democrats allegedly do (Look it up).
+ Bush Great Recession where the resulting failing economy meant less Gov't revenue

ALL that still has to be paid for, because to date, it STILL hasn't been in full.

+ Stimulus - Obama
+ Congressional spending budget

= Debt

Again, spending is determined by Congress, not the President, and to think that that n*BLEEP* hating do-nothing Congress that whose sole purpose over 2 terms was to say nay to everything Obama wanted sure as heckfire didn't let him spend any extra.

AKA: "Because maff is a thang"
2 ups
First off Obama had the slowest economic rate of any president ever. And I do loove when people say, hey it's Obama's policies that allowed the stock market to skyrocket. It's laughable, because THEE day that trump was elected is when it went up up up and has not come down.
So don't try to pretend that Osama, I mean Obama's policies, all of a sudden, on the day trump is elected decided to work.
OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATION DOUBLED THE NATION DEBT IN EIGHT YEARS. That's not good. The debt under Obama grew 87%. He may have cut backed in some areas but he defiantly over spent in others.
The Syrian war. The one where he dropped a bomb every 20 minutes of his presidency. Do you still not understand hes a muslim and helped create isis.
Is that commonsense to you. Obama care is the main culprit though. His greatest accomplishment (besides letting men into womans bathrooms). You know the one where he lied through his teeth.
Increasing welfare payments to soften the blow of a GDP that was drained so dramatically, because of sending jobs overseas is minuscule compared to what Barack "Hussain" Osama has done.
How many times did Bush just hand over OUR gold and billions of dollars to Iran? That's a really good "cuttback." Or how about wiring Pakistan 250 million dollars right as he left office. Obama really knows how to work that budget. So let's not get started on hand out mm'kay.
Cutting federal employees. Ah yes. Like how Obama came in and fired pretty.much every fbi cia agent and replaced them. Also having them retrained by the Muslim brotherhood, teaching to be extra nice to dem muslims. I know more about Isis and terrorism then they do lol.
2 ups
Don't make it seem like Congress was so mean to poor Obama. All he needed was a phone and a pen :).
2 ups
And last thing about "parties." Starting this Republican this democrat that to try and prove points isn't going to work with me, I'm more conservative, because liberalism, today is a mental disorder. I'll vote Republican over democrat because the Democratic party seeks to replace Americans with foreigners. These are the people that force American citizens out of there apartment buildings to make room for illegal immigrants.
But I'm antiestablishment. I'm maga party.
2 ups
So if the rate of government spending decreased, how does an administration, in only eight years out spend every single previous president combined, with out he rate of spending being increased. Or did that administration just buy bigger things?
Blaming Bush syndrome. It's a thing. With this logic we could just blame Clinton for Bush to the same degree.
Also Obama started his own wars.
If all this is true how do you explain the stock market jumping to record highs under trump?
reply
1 up
A decrease in the rate doesn't mean spending stopped. Please refer to my previous statement.
There were cutbacks, some across the board. The Sequester ring any bells?
Federal employees were layed off by the tens of thousands. Expenditures in general were cut back. Because of the recession, there were more people on the welfare and foodstamps rolls. But remember how Bush increased how much in Foodstamps a person can receive in order to keep the suddenly poor middle classers fat who weren't used to be being poor like the trailer & ghetto trash that don't count? When that expired, it stayed expired.

The debt has gone up under every Administration since these United States became independent of the British Crown. Debt was briefly eliminated under Andrew Jackson (because of the mass sell-off of Native lands), but the spending that followed crashed our economy nice n good.
Reagan's was the first to hit a trillion. Compare his Admin's debt to Carter's.

Obama started what war? A surgical strike to KILL them damn Muslim Islamical Al Queda ISIL terrorists we complain about, ya now, Bush's deck of cards, ain't starting a war, it's preventing one. Or would you rather that he let Bin Laden live too the way Bush did even though he knew exactly where he was in the beginning? Does pretending someone is a bad bad president mean we let our enemies live? Not on my dime. Trump has my permission to kill terrorists too (I mean, other than 2 planes on a Syrian airstrip), improve our economy, and whatever else for OUR benefit. I don't want shit to go to hell just so I can point and sneer that Repubs are boobooheads.

The Stock MArket didn't jump, it's been on this path for 6 years now, and hit record highs under guess who? Also, it was WHOSE policies that allowed for this? Sorry, stocks didn't get branded TRUMP in 2017 and suddenly zoom because of it. It don't work like that.
reply
0 ups
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
:)
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
:)
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
Tell that to the families of farmers who inherit the farm, and have to sell off land to pay the death tax.
reply
6 ups
Well they have to pay for the trumps of the nations yachts.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Cry me a river - How much is the death tax?
ATRA increased the amount of an estate that is not subject to taxation, known as the exemption, to $5 million. The exemption amount is indexed each year for inflation. For the 2016 tax year, the estate tax exemption is $5.45 million.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
The death tax ought to be zero. Taxes were already paid when the money was earned. Taxing again after a death is unconscionable. By the way, when one looks at who actually pays taxes to the feds, there are a whole lot of people who pay no taxes to the feds. We ought to abolish the income tax, and replace it with a flat consumption tax. That way, everyone pays the same rate (Equal treatment under the law), and no one gets a free ride whether they get their income from an underground economy or any other way.
reply
3 ups
Yeah, death tax ought to be zero. Because inheritance is totally earned income.
reply
3 ups
You MEAN the ESTATE TAX - RIGHT? There is no DEATH TAX.

BUT HEY - encourage innovation and all that - raise the thresholdvfor the Tax to Estates greater than 10 Million - and then end all the ways that the super rich escape paying.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Don't those farmers receive massive subsidies?

Yeah, I git it, without it they go under. But sorry, ya want continuous money outta the system, ya can't complain about putting some back at least ONCE in yer whole dang life.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
farm subsidies are used by government to control production and commodity market price manipulation. small farms are normally excluded.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
They were intended and designed for family farms to survive the vagaries of the market starting in 1949. Over the years, millionaires and corporations have taken over (and exploited loopholes to exceed limits), with an increase of 28% of these recieving them under Bush.

Bear in mind, not many of of today's spoiled xbox kidz want to work farms anyways, a nice air conditioned cubicle where they can play online all day is more worth the pay.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
jack_henoff - That is the exact use of federal farm subsidies I just described in simple terms.

By your own statement, their "design" has no bearing on their actual use.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You didn't mention the original intent. In fact, you stated "small farms are normally excluded."

Also, you said they were used to control production and commodity prices.
Keeping prices depressed so that we and the world can eat cheaply and cry about how fat we are instead of focusing on real problems is different from saving small farmers back in the day from starvation.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
YOU SAID THE SAME THING.

The original intent (which was broader than you describe and was being initiated much earlier than 1949 and has seen periodic legislative changes well into the 1990's) wasn't mentioned because it has no relevance.

Furthermore, they weren't enacted to save "small farmers from starvation".

What are you, a congressman or a CNN reporter? You argue minutiae instead of addressing the actual issue and create facts.

Farm subsidies DO manipulate commodity market prices, they do control production, they do harm small farmers.

"An agricultural subsidy is a governmental subsidy paid to farmers and agribusinesses to supplement their income, manage the supply of agricultural commodities, and influence the cost and supply of such commodities."

Why do you want everyone relying on the state and the state's corporations?
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
If I did say the same thing, why the argument?

You agree with me, that's good. You backed and validated my facts. Much appreciated.

And yeah, I'm a CNN *tunes in MSM fake news meme yawn* Dem Senator.

Nite.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
That is the question I was asking you. Goodnight, troll.
0 ups
Next time Google for your copy/paste BEFORE getting it wrong.
reply
0 ups
TROLL
reply
[deleted]
7 ups
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Yes living without fear of homelessness, hunger or able to be qualified for good jobs since they can go to school.... oh the horror. No one on assistance wants to be there, or are to ill and there is no other way. You ever try to eat on 40.00 a week? How many freaking yachts do you need?
reply
0 ups
There are MILLIONS on public assistance that are HAPPY to be there.....they even remain on it generationally!

They got being a recipient down to a science and have many "hacks" to increase their lifestyle without disqualifying themselves.

Go to a housing project and count all the new cars in the parking lot and all the high end apparel being worn.

And FYI - I fed a family of 3 on $20 a week for several years...combined, not per person...and these were recent years...in america...all native born citizens.
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
I would say anyone who has to ask such a question in the context of the meme image in which you asked it don''t posses the intellectual capacity to receive the answer.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I would say anyone who can't answer such a question in the context of the meme image in which it was asked doesn't possess the intellectual capacity to answer it even as they take it upon themself to address it doesn't possess the intellectual capacity to answer it.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Jack - As usual you're being irrational, incoherent,and talking in a circle. What happened? I thought you weren't reading anymore of my posts?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Your projection speaks for itself. Your username should be IMAX.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
How funny. You're now using words I taught you.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
You can't even get the cliche right.

Oh, and your punctuation is in need of repair too.

Really? What words are that? You invented the English language? That's so cute. Can I have your autograph?
reply
3 ups, 5 replies
By the way. I'll ask again. What happened to this below? Am I still inside your head?

" I'm not even reading your drivel. You keep referring to logical fallacies to verify your inane pablum yet still offer no FACTS nor even opinion applicable to the subject. "
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
No, you keep referring to logical fallacies because you have no facts or even a worded out opinion to offer.

Funny, because you originally got "counter argument" from me when I kept asking you for an actual argument instead of just the framework of one minus any substance.
1 up
Jack - You're projecting imitating me again. Cant you even think for yourself? They have self esteem classes for such behavior you know.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Yes, you STILL ARE referring to logical fallacies to verify your inane pablum yet still offer no FACTS nor even opinion applicable to the subject.
2 ups
I'm still referring to logical fallacies because your'e still committing them. This is what logic does for you. It helps you to recognize faulty reasoning in people's arguments and the faulty conclusions which flow from such arguments.

Strictly speaking, you could argue poorly and still draw a right conclusion, but the odds of it when committing as many logical fails as you have would be highly improbable.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Gosh, you're an obtuse lil' sniveling buttrag.
reply
1 up
Once again, you're projecting. Can't complain if you're doing the same.

And ya still ain't answered tha questions.
reply
3 ups
I agree. the cliche ( As it's commonly known ) would be imitate, but impersonate still works.

Now where are your counter arguments ?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I'd say anyone who would respond with such idiocy neither understood the full scope of the question nor has the intellectual capacity to answer correctly.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Well you're right, you could say that, but arguing that would be another story. The language in this comment doesn't seem to indicate a mental midget like you are capable of assembling an argument.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
reply
2 ups
Here's a stand alone insult for you...
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Don't act silly. You know that marine is not the subject of debate.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
No but vets like him and other truly disabled people are among those you are criticizing. I get that there are a lot of undeserving people taking advantage of the system. But not everyone on welfare is like that. Getting rid of the entire system will hurt a lot of people, just to punish those who don't belong there.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I am not disparaging any disabled vet. I am not disparaging any truly disabled person.

I am disparaging those that are taking undue advantage of the system.

Removing those that do not belong there is the point of my objections.

Being said, if you're a "stay at home mom" with 4 kids on the public dole and you are covered in tattoos, got a carton of smokes, and a boyfriend that makes $12/hour who stays in your nearly free housing, eats off of your foodstamps, and y'all spend your stipend check on scratch off tickets and beer while his money is spent on a new car, name brand apparel, the latest cell phones and techno gadgets, a "family" trip to disney and a $400 dog, then you need to get off the program. You are a parasite of the people that support you with money they are fleeced out of, leaving them too broke to get a cool snake tattoo of their own.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
That's the hard part: trying to keep the system pure. There will always be those who find every loophole to take advantage of the system (I believe Trump refers to that as being "smart?")

But I wasn't saying you were disparaging vets. I just wanted to remind people that it gets tricky when you're trying to judge people based on what you think you know about them.

There are plenty of vets with tattoos, or people who became disabled or disenfranchised long after getting tattoos. The single mother of four might have gotten dumped by her abusive ex and now has PTSD and clinical depression from the trauma and can barely get up in the morning.

It's so easy to say "if you're so poor why do you have a cell phone?" Not everyone on welfare is waiting in line at the Apple Store on Black Friday. That's all I'm saying.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I was very specific regarding the tattoo portion of my comment.

These are illustrative statements that aren't to be construed as applying to everyone on public assistance, or with a tattoo, or that smokes, or owns a cell phone, or owns a dog....quit worrying about unimportant semantic wrangling. :D

As for the depression and ptsd....tough, get over it. She's not a combat vet.
She got abused for any length of time because of poor choices she made. Not everybody that witnesses or experiences "traumatic" events becomes a whimpering, sniveler that is unable to function....unless they are enabled to do so.

Besides, if you can get out of bed to go buy smokes, get a tatt, and find the next man, I would question how debilitating your ptsd is.

If dumped off of welfare I bet she would find herself able to get up in the morning.

Finally, this has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with able bodied people that parasitically live off of the labors of others yet maintain a higher standard of living than their hosts.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Okay well you just basically denied your original sentiment then reaffirmed it. What do you know of PTSD anyway? Being in an abusive relationship is like being at war. Look it up for yourself. I'm not going to go into all the intricacies involved in why some women don't get out as quick as others. You obviously have no empathy for the down and out and a lot of people feel the same way. And again, I know there are people who use the system. But I know for a fact it's not as cut and dry as some might believe.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You fail to understand the content. I can't help you in that regard.

However, you are correct in assuming that I have zero sympathy or empathy for malingerers.

I know plenty about ptsd and domestic violence. Personal interaction with women who stayed to die because they didn't want to change their kid's school or move away and get a new job. But getting skittish whenever somebody raises their voice is not a disability.

But I don't mind getting a few CEU's: Tell me all YOU know about ptsd?
reply
1 up
Let's just say I have first hand experience and leave it at that... As for the content, I get it. Thanks for commenting...
reply
4 ups
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups, 3 replies
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
I wouldn't say it pays "all" your bills....
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Ssdi pays based upon what the individual has paid in.
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
600 a month is plenty when you also get housing assistance and foodstamp assistance.
reply
1 up
reply
0 ups
exceed YOUR income
reply
4 ups
reply
0 ups
"You realize preventing the Great Recession started with the Bush administration don’t you? The Obama administration policies slowed down the recovery by making more people dependent on government welfare instead of incentivizing businesses to hire more people."

I already mentioned TARP, which bailed out the very ones who wrecked the economy with their pyramid scheme of which regular folks had to pay for before, during, and after (incl the bailout). CEO's reaped historical bonuses from this.
The rest is simply not true, AND YOU KNOW IT.
The Bush Admin had full page ads in newspapers telling people that they did not have to be umemployed to recieve welfare and foodstamps, and expanded qualifications to factor in family size and costs in ratio to earnings of working people. This was BEFORE the Great Recession, mind you. Once the recession began, Bush increased EBT allowance per individual to accomodate the level of comfort richer folks now unemployed were accustomed to.
Yes, the unemployed are dependent on such because they strangely don't want to starve to death in the cold, funny, huh?

Incentivize business how? They were bailed out, CEO's continued to make record bonuses, companies made record profits, NYSE posted records. So incentivize how?
The economy is 70% consumer driven. People stopped buying condos in Florida and redoing their kitchens every 2 years. The Gov't cannot force them to waste money in garbage expenditures like that.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
i.imgflip.com/1wu6ao.gif (click to show)
reply
[deleted]
5 ups
And depressing :(
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Yes it's called 'Not starving people to death because there are more people than jobs.'
reply
1 up, 1 reply
If there’s more people than jobs, why do we have so many people from other countries on work visas?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It because our welfare system promotes idleness rather than being productive members of society. To many Americans would rather live off welfare than work for minimum wage.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Corporations are notoriously looking for cheap labor and if they have to hire outside of the country, so be it. It's not because there's such a huge surplus of jobs with no Americans to fill them. You brought up immigrants with H-1 visas. These are for good jobs that plenty of Americans would qualify for. But they're not only getting overlooked, they're getting *replaced* and are even having to train the new guy. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/08/there-are-7-million-unemployed-and-6-2-million-job-openings-whats-the-problem/
reply
1 up
The article proves my point. Americans won’t take or stay at jobs because corporations won’t pay them enough.
Corporations want to expand H-1 visas so they can flood the market with more skilled workers to drive down wages and eliminate the need for them to provide training.
Anyway, the notion that there are more Americans than American jobs is false.
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
reply
2 ups
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 2 replies
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
reply
4 ups
Excellent point!
reply
0 ups
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Think again.... His base is chock full of racist country bumpkins who have no idea how much he really despises them... Sad!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Not nearly as bad as Obama worked against them and dispises them.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
That's your proof right there.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Obama didn’t *give* people healthcare. He forced those of us who pay for our own health insurance to pay for other people’s healthcare too. My family’s health insurance premium has increased over 800% since the first phases of Obamacare went into effect. Plus our deductibles have shot up at about the same rate.
Yet the *cost* of healthcare has never been higher and some states have lost most or all insurers in the healthcare exchange. If it continues, the entire system will collapse. So Trump wants to make changes so those people who lost their full time jobs because of Obamacare don’t lose health insurance too. That’s not wanting to take it away, it’s wanting to preserve it. But the liberal press will continue to spin it as Trump and the Republicans want to take healthcare away from people when the truth is quite the opposite.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I'm sorry for your struggles. I hope the government can help make things better... for all of us. I just don't have a lot of faith in this administration...
reply
0 ups
No one really does. I just try to realize that most things happen for a reason and that reason is usually positive in the long term. Obamacare? In the grand scheme of things, it taught us that nothing is free. Trump's presidency? it currently teaches us that even if everything seems against us, we will still survive.
reply
0 ups
reply
2 ups, 4 replies
You mean California and New York secretly voted for Trump?
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups
Perhaps you need to learn how to read...
reply
2 ups
What's the point of having the lowest literacy rate in the developed world if people are gonna go make themselves learn something?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Don’t forget Chicago, Illinois. And a great many of them happen to be dead.
reply
2 ups
Agreed!
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups
Red States typically have the highest rates of recipients on public assistance.
Most of those welfare recipients are registered Republicans.

New York & California are 2 of ONLY 5 States that pay MORE to Fed gov't than they get back (75/100). In other words, they pay to support the 45 other welfare states.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
But being stupid is your business - The 10 states receiving the most in federal aid as a percentage of their general revenue, in order, were:
Mississippi, 42.9% federal aid as percentage of general revenue.
Louisiana, 41.9%
Tennessee, 39.5%
South Dakota, 39.0%
Missouri, 38.2%
Montana, 37.4%
Georgia, 37.3%
New Mexico, 36.6%
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Let me help you here.You seem to be navigating this conversation with some degree of difficulty and in your frustration are offering insults in lieu of an actual argument to support your claims.

The issue was welfare, not federal AID, which all states receive and is funded by all people paying federal taxes. Let's try that again.

Here. Check out the two bluest states in the union in regards to welfare spending.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2017b40a

Welfare as a percentage of population. ( Pay special attention to NY and California )

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2017b40as

By the way. Before you bring it up. They don't just spend more, as in more because of more people, but more per capita.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Life decisions.
reply
1 up
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 2 replies
reply
1 up, 1 reply
“ Because my country — our country — means more than my money. ”
CHARLIE FINK, FORMER AOL EXECUTIVE- https://patrioticmillionaires.org/
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
Someone's opinion doesn't change fact. Pursuit of happiness is a human right. If greed makes people happy then they have a right to pursue it.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Pursue it all you want, try making that money in Somalia where there are no taxes.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
And that's why socialism doesn't work. If there is no incentive to work (get rich) then no one will work. If I can't keep what I earn then I work less. But hey I have a lot of time to play golf.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
god man enough READ _ 0------ -------https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
The premise is garbage. Here is an analogy. 20 guys go out for the football team. One guy makes the cut and gets paid $3 million/yr. His the one responsible to pay the other 19 to sit and watch him work? He is responsible for the 19 not being successful?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
No. that is not the premise. not even close. here is a thought, try reading the article.
[deleted]
0 ups
The basic premise of socialism is that successful people are to blame for poverty and should be punished (social justice). I need to read the article I know how to use google scholar.
reply
0 ups
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
with the TAXES THEY STOLE FROM THE GUY WITH 3 JOBS!
reply
4 ups, 4 replies
Yep. Even before ObamaCare, I sat on the board for a great many years for a Health Care Clinic. People who smoked cigarettes, had multiple tattoos (apparently they had cash for that!), ate all of the wrong foods (many were diabetics who really needed to wear a "Wide Load" sign on their backs), took illegal drugs, etc., would show up at the door of the clinic (some multiple times per week).

None of them were ever turned away, and although they were billed for services, would never pay, and government subsidies covered what was not paid to us. Don't tell me that health care was inaccessible to anyone prior to ObamaCare. It ain't true!
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
But as a healthcare professional, you do understand that the whole point of Obamacare is to try to keep people healthy so they're *not* showing up on clinic doorsteps multiple times per week?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
If you think that people have adopted healthier habits because of Obamacare, I believe you might be interested in a bridge that I have that is new to the market. Whit the high deductibles for rodinary people, healthcare is less accessible to people than it was before ObamaCare.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
That's not what I'm saying at all... Didn't mention healthier habits. I'm talking about regular checkups, screenings and access to medical care for prevention of bigger problems down the road, which millions of people now have.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
And I am saying that as someone who sat on the board of directors for a health care clinic, that those same patients had the very same accessibility to healthcare before ObbamaCare, and after ObamaCare. You cannot convince me that Obamacare did anything positive, and from my viewpoint it hurt a whole lot of people.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Are you trying to deny that? And are speaking from the perspective of a healthcare professional or a business person who sits on a board?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
As neither. The board was comprised of volunteers whose goal was to provide excellent healthcare to anyone regardless of their ability to pay. The clinic is located in the poorest county in New Hampshire, but there are clinics like ours all across the country. While we billed our patients for everything from checkups to STD screening, a great many of them could pay nothing. And for those people, there were federal subsidies available. Anyone who thinks that healthcare was not available to the poor prior to Obamacare is flat out wrong. No one was ever turned away from our clinic.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Why volunteer to help people if you're going to judge them for their life choices or situations? Knowing how many of the dregs of society are mentally ill (either undiagnosed or diagnosed), vets with PTSD, or people just plain down on their luck... Not everyone has their sh*t together. I'm just baffled that someone with your viewpoint was actually trying to help people at all. Who knows when they got their tattoos? Who cares? And fat shaming your patients? Good grief....
reply
1 up, 1 reply
All I was saying was that we had some patients who simply lived a very unhealthy lifestyle despite the best advice from our health care professionals. Despite their many bad choices, and despite the fact that they showed up at the clinic in some cases multiple times per week, they were treated, and none were turned away. Insofar as my motives, I for one am someone who believes in a very small federal government, with most of the government power residing in the state and the communities. So I see it as my duty to not only preach small government, but to also step up to the plate to do my fair share. The board consisted of likeminded individuals that consisted of various educated people; bankers, lawyers, retired teachers, etc. I myself am a retired MIT Computer Scientist. Insofar as judging, I believe that your comments unfairly judged me, and I for one am not inclined to continue this back and forth with such a judgemental person.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2 replies
Yep, I worked in the ER as a nurse and saw ridiculous abuse—the worse was a woman who came in via ambulance for a pregnancy test. The ambulance companies aren’t allowed to turn people down once they are called.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
reply
4 ups
https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/bypass-surgery-800x568.jpg
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups
Yet you didn't mind making a buck off of them, eh?
Your altruistic dedication to the sick is admirable. Next stop, Red Cross?
reply
3 ups
It doesn't technically work exactly like that, methinks... unless you live in some declining socialist European country, II think only the poor people who can't work get paid by the government.
reply
3 ups
Nothing in this modern society makes sense
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
Well said!
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
The fact that this is the number one meme on the front page shows me how many folks here actually live in the US and actually work for a living. The struggle is real...for us who work for a living in the US that is. Lol
reply
3 ups
Thank you. And I didn’t have to resort to boobs, or yoga pants, or a lady suggestively eating a banana... Not that there is anything wrong with those memes. :-)
reply
2 ups
It is so much easier to live off of the tax dollars of those who work for a living but unfortunately, my balls are not for sale.
reply
2 ups
Instead of cutting taxes on the rich - and RAISING TAXES ON THE POOR...perhaps Congress should end CORPORATE WELFARE.

End the cap on Social Security or all the Donut holez and subsidies given to the Wealthy throughout the tax code. THEN cut taxes to a level that supports the needs of society - not the Pentagon and itz Contractors.
reply
2 ups
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
[image deleted]
reply
2 ups
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
upvote for you
https://i.imgflip.com/1zlocr.jpg
reply
1 up
Thank you!
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
lol. people love helping others who are in need... as long as those in need aren't given money.
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-economists-minimum-income.html
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
And I can point out a number of economists who would say that a guaranteed minimum income would be bad. But let's get back to fundamentals. The US Constitution is a contract between the Federal Government and its citizens. The powers granted to the Federal Government are enumerated. Furthermore, the 10th amendment says that all powers that are not enumerated for the federal government are reserved for the States. Could you kindly point out where in the Constitution, it is a federal power to confiscate money from those who work to give to those who don't (of course after taking a large federal handling fee)?

From my perspective, since charity work is not defined as an enumerated power of the Federal government, it ought to be reserved solely to each state. Oh, by the way... Each state that I am aware of has a balanced budget, so they can only spend what they take in for taxation. This is a very different concept than allowing the Federal government to do everything that is not enumerated, and without any concern for whether that social program can be afforded with tax levels or not.

Lastly, I know that you cannot wrap your brain around the way that I think. Let's call it even, because I cannot wrap my brain around the way that you think. There is a great divide in this country in the concept of the size, scope, and role of the Federal government. You and I will never agree and arguing endlessly achieves nothing. I know that there is no way to sway you to my way of thought. And I also know that there is no way for you to sway me to your way of thought.
reply
2 ups
I am glad that you had the patience to type this out...because I don't.
reply
2 ups
This sexiness GETS me money ;)
reply
2 ups
omg lol
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
That`s how 2 million people in Bulgaria(6,9 million ppl) live nowadays.
reply
1 up
i.imgflip.com/1zsexl.jpg (click to show)

i.imgflip.com/1zse1w.jpg (click to show)
Flip Settings
Third World Skeptical Kid memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
SO IF I WORK, I HAVE TO PAY TAXES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT IF I DON'T WORK, THEN THE GOVERNMENT PAYS ME?
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback