Not sayin' he's assured my vote, but Trump has business sense. I think he knows enough to surround himself with experts, and let them do their jobs while he provides the strategy. He also knows when it's time to cut them loose; "Your fired!" I'd like to hear his views on the founding of this Country, the 2nd Amendment, taxes, the welfare society we've allowed to happen, immigration, muslims in America, his faith/beliefs, and term limits for ALL in politics. Just a few areas I'm watching.
-
Please read the new forum rules! REQUIRED!
Click Here: https://www.gulfcoastgunforum.com/threads/general-forum-rules-code-of-conduct.70770/
-
New Reloading Sticky Thread for Trading, Swapping Gear, etc.
https://www.gulfcoastgunforum.com/threads/reloading-components-for-trade-item-value-and-photo.104847/
New Highs for Trump in the Polls.
- Thread starter Fletch
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Urbanfuturistic
Marksman
Well, we already know he supports an AWB, so theres that.
Just a point to consider with abortion... The other side of the coin is 1/2 of our population is on subsistence living, many of these people have children with no intent on raising them properly or providing the means, they do so for the additional revenue and assistance they receive. I've heard countless families in therapeutic group sessions strategize over having X number of kids by age ___ so they'll be 'making' X amount a month.
So on one hand the debate is no abortion, period. Then we have those creating lives that burden society with their care and no, they will not put these kids up for adoption and surprise surprise, this isn't a 'black or Mexican issue' this happens and is happening every day right here in the pan handle among MANY low income WHITE families. This is a generational issue, these young mothers are products of young mothers and they will raise another generation of kids who also will repeat this trend. Personally, unless a person is disabled, if they don't contribute to society, I got no place for them in my world and Im sick and effing tired of supporting them with my hard earned money. So yea, I'm torn on the issue ... I have three girls and cherish their existence. I also respect a woman making this decision for herself. We don't want government telling us what to do with our guns but we do with our bodies and babies? The religious line gets easily blurred. Don't meddle in this BC it's our right but meddle in that BC it's God's right.
This world is suffocating itself, these oxygen thieves who constantly reproduce like wild hogs need to be controlled one way or another.
I'll step off my soap box now... Need coffee..
So on one hand the debate is no abortion, period. Then we have those creating lives that burden society with their care and no, they will not put these kids up for adoption and surprise surprise, this isn't a 'black or Mexican issue' this happens and is happening every day right here in the pan handle among MANY low income WHITE families. This is a generational issue, these young mothers are products of young mothers and they will raise another generation of kids who also will repeat this trend. Personally, unless a person is disabled, if they don't contribute to society, I got no place for them in my world and Im sick and effing tired of supporting them with my hard earned money. So yea, I'm torn on the issue ... I have three girls and cherish their existence. I also respect a woman making this decision for herself. We don't want government telling us what to do with our guns but we do with our bodies and babies? The religious line gets easily blurred. Don't meddle in this BC it's our right but meddle in that BC it's God's right.
This world is suffocating itself, these oxygen thieves who constantly reproduce like wild hogs need to be controlled one way or another.
I'll step off my soap box now... Need coffee..
That 1/2 of the population on subsistence living mantra gets thrown around a lot and is just as intentionally misleading as some of the things liberals throw out there about guns. That number includes social security and medicare and a majority on subsistence is the elderly. Collecting one's SS and Medicare is not mooching. The next biggest percentage is WORKING households and then only 9% of assistance goes to non-retirement age non working households which still probably include some physically and mentally disabled. This idea that 50% of the population are moochers living off the rest of us is just not true. Social Security, Medicare, and Defense Spending are the majority of the budget. All this other stuff is a drop in the bucket. Just cutting out fraud and streamlining the bureaucracies of these 3 could lead to a balanced budget imo.
Social Security should not even be in the budget. If the bastards had not been robbing Social Security all these years it would be self-sufficient.
Medicare is not that great. Even though I have paid a ton of money into Social Security and Medicare over the years, I still have to pay Medicare premiums out of my Social Security check. If you want coverage like you had before you retired the Medicare premiums and the supplemental premiums are as much or more than you paid while working.
By the way, 1/4 of the Iraq war budget would have funded Social Security for the next 75 years.
Medicare is not that great. Even though I have paid a ton of money into Social Security and Medicare over the years, I still have to pay Medicare premiums out of my Social Security check. If you want coverage like you had before you retired the Medicare premiums and the supplemental premiums are as much or more than you paid while working.
By the way, 1/4 of the Iraq war budget would have funded Social Security for the next 75 years.
yeah, but that was money we didnt have either....
Clay, thank you for higlighting that it is a income based generational issue.
Fletch, thank you for pointing out that more assistance/aid is given to people underemployed(part time minimum wage) than unemployed.
John, thank you for reminding us how much money, resources, and lives we spent looking for all those weapons of mass destruction that, many believe, are now residing in Syria.
And thanks to fupa, caveman, newbie, and all who realize that abortion isn't black and white.
Oh, and thank you urban, for keeping in mind that in his heart, trump is still a rich New Yorker.
Fletch, thank you for pointing out that more assistance/aid is given to people underemployed(part time minimum wage) than unemployed.
John, thank you for reminding us how much money, resources, and lives we spent looking for all those weapons of mass destruction that, many believe, are now residing in Syria.
And thanks to fupa, caveman, newbie, and all who realize that abortion isn't black and white.
Oh, and thank you urban, for keeping in mind that in his heart, trump is still a rich New Yorker.
Fletch-----some reading for you - respectfully, you're misled, Sir. This info is validated on numerous platforms if you don't trust this source.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/354-percent-109631000-welfare
109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded "means-tested programs" — also known as welfare — as of the fourth quarter of 2012, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.
The Census Bureau has not yet reported how many were on welfare in 2013 or the first two quarters of 2014.
But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.
When those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits — were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012.
Subtract the 3,297,000 who were receiving veterans' benefits from the total, and that leaves 150,026,000 people receiving non-veterans' benefits.
The 153,323,000 total benefit-takers at the end of 2012, said the Census Bureau, equaled 49.5 percent of the population. The 150,026,000 taking benefits other than veterans' benefits equaled about 48.5 percent of the population.
When America re-elected President Barack Obama in 2012, we had not quite reached the point where more than half the country was taking benefits from the federal government.
It is a reasonable bet, however, that with the implementation of Obamacare — with its provisions expanding Medicaid and providing health-insurance subsidies to people earning up to 400 percent of poverty — that if we have not already surpassed that point (not counting those getting veterans benefits) we soon will.
What did taxpayers give to the 109,631,000 — the 35.4 percent of the nation — getting welfare benefits at the end of 2012?
82,679,000 of the welfare-takers lived in households where people were on Medicaid, said the Census Bureau. 51,471,000 were in households on food stamps. 22,526,000 were in the Women, Infants and Children program. 20,355,000 were in household on Supplemental Security Income. 13,267,000 lived in public housing or got housing subsidies. 5,442,000 got Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. 4,517,000 received other forms of federal cash assistance.
How do you put in perspective the 109,631,000 people taking welfare, or the 150,026,000 getting some type of federal benefit other than veterans' benefits?
Well, the CIA World Factbook says there are 142,470,272 people in Russia. So, the 150,026,000 people getting non-veterans federal benefits in the United States at the end of 2012 outnumbered all the people in Russia.
63,742,977 people live in the United Kingdom and 44,291,413 live in the Ukraine, says the CIA. So, the combined 108,034,390 people in these two nations was about 1,596,610 less than 109,631,000 collecting welfare in the United States.
It may be more telling, however, to compare the 109,631,000 Americans taking federal welfare benefits at the end of 2012 to Americans categorized by other characteristics.
In 2012, according to the Census Bureau, there were 103,087,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States (including 16,606,000 full-time year-round government workers). Thus, the welfare-takers outnumbered full-time year-round workers by 6,544,000.
California, the nation's most-populated state, contained an estimated 38,332,521 people in 2013, says the Census Bureau. Texas had 26,448,193 people, New York had 19,651,127, and Florida had 19,552,860. But the combined 103,984,701 people in these four massive states still fell about 5,646,299 short of the 109,631,000 people on welfare.
In the fourth quarter of 2008, when President Obama was elected, there were 96,197,000 people living in households taking benefits from one or more federal welfare programs. After four years, by the fourth quarter of 2012, that had grown by 13,434,000.
Those 13,434,000 additional people on welfare outnumbered the 12,882,135 people the Census Bureau estimated lived in Obama's home state of Illinois in 2013.
The business and economic reporting of CNSNews.com is funded in part with a gift made in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/354-percent-109631000-welfare
109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded "means-tested programs" — also known as welfare — as of the fourth quarter of 2012, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.
The Census Bureau has not yet reported how many were on welfare in 2013 or the first two quarters of 2014.
But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.
When those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits — were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012.
Subtract the 3,297,000 who were receiving veterans' benefits from the total, and that leaves 150,026,000 people receiving non-veterans' benefits.
The 153,323,000 total benefit-takers at the end of 2012, said the Census Bureau, equaled 49.5 percent of the population. The 150,026,000 taking benefits other than veterans' benefits equaled about 48.5 percent of the population.
When America re-elected President Barack Obama in 2012, we had not quite reached the point where more than half the country was taking benefits from the federal government.
It is a reasonable bet, however, that with the implementation of Obamacare — with its provisions expanding Medicaid and providing health-insurance subsidies to people earning up to 400 percent of poverty — that if we have not already surpassed that point (not counting those getting veterans benefits) we soon will.
What did taxpayers give to the 109,631,000 — the 35.4 percent of the nation — getting welfare benefits at the end of 2012?
82,679,000 of the welfare-takers lived in households where people were on Medicaid, said the Census Bureau. 51,471,000 were in households on food stamps. 22,526,000 were in the Women, Infants and Children program. 20,355,000 were in household on Supplemental Security Income. 13,267,000 lived in public housing or got housing subsidies. 5,442,000 got Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. 4,517,000 received other forms of federal cash assistance.
How do you put in perspective the 109,631,000 people taking welfare, or the 150,026,000 getting some type of federal benefit other than veterans' benefits?
Well, the CIA World Factbook says there are 142,470,272 people in Russia. So, the 150,026,000 people getting non-veterans federal benefits in the United States at the end of 2012 outnumbered all the people in Russia.
63,742,977 people live in the United Kingdom and 44,291,413 live in the Ukraine, says the CIA. So, the combined 108,034,390 people in these two nations was about 1,596,610 less than 109,631,000 collecting welfare in the United States.
It may be more telling, however, to compare the 109,631,000 Americans taking federal welfare benefits at the end of 2012 to Americans categorized by other characteristics.
In 2012, according to the Census Bureau, there were 103,087,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States (including 16,606,000 full-time year-round government workers). Thus, the welfare-takers outnumbered full-time year-round workers by 6,544,000.
California, the nation's most-populated state, contained an estimated 38,332,521 people in 2013, says the Census Bureau. Texas had 26,448,193 people, New York had 19,651,127, and Florida had 19,552,860. But the combined 103,984,701 people in these four massive states still fell about 5,646,299 short of the 109,631,000 people on welfare.
In the fourth quarter of 2008, when President Obama was elected, there were 96,197,000 people living in households taking benefits from one or more federal welfare programs. After four years, by the fourth quarter of 2012, that had grown by 13,434,000.
Those 13,434,000 additional people on welfare outnumbered the 12,882,135 people the Census Bureau estimated lived in Obama's home state of Illinois in 2013.
The business and economic reporting of CNSNews.com is funded in part with a gift made in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold.
Last edited:
eace:Roaster's Gallery
Master
Are you counting food stamps as welfare? Dept. of Agriculture program. Where does the wealth end up? Not with the "means tested" individuals. Monsanto, Koch industries, etc. You can bitch about welfare, but the first recipients of the funds are just "paid consumers", lubricating our capitalistic economy, and making the rich richer. The rich in turn pay to get folks elected who might say they will end these programs, but never will. And defense?, just paid grunts to help protect and steal other country's natural resources so the rich can use them to sell more shit to the "paid consumers".
Your argument is 100% subjective like Fletch's, stay away from your opinion and present verified facts. The data I provided should answer your questions.
Last edited:
I wonder what could have possibly happened in 2008 that would cause such a rise in goverment funded assistance?
I mean, what if it wasn't the president. Was there possibly any other cause that may have contributed to the increase ?
I mean, was there possibly like a wave of unemployment? Maybe a partial collapse of the American financial institution? A bottoming out of the housing market?
Look, before anyone goes and calls the commitee of unamerican acts on me, I'm just saying. He did his damnedest to make it easier to stay on welfare for longer periods of time. He tried his hardest to outlaw certain firearms in a knee jerk reaction to media sensation tragedies. He supported the federal law which requires medical insurance, which for most moderate income families means higher premiums for less coverage, a higher copay, as it turns out the insurance companies I the market place aren't allowed to negotiate prices for drugs/treatments(npr is in a full swing rising-medical-cost campaign right now). I personally, politically, and morally dislike the man, and his party. But he doesn't bear full responsibility to our "welfare dependent society". Actually, I think clinton(the born male) did a whole helluva lot more damage, but anyway.
But also, awesome read clay.
Thanks for posting it.
I mean, what if it wasn't the president. Was there possibly any other cause that may have contributed to the increase ?
I mean, was there possibly like a wave of unemployment? Maybe a partial collapse of the American financial institution? A bottoming out of the housing market?
Look, before anyone goes and calls the commitee of unamerican acts on me, I'm just saying. He did his damnedest to make it easier to stay on welfare for longer periods of time. He tried his hardest to outlaw certain firearms in a knee jerk reaction to media sensation tragedies. He supported the federal law which requires medical insurance, which for most moderate income families means higher premiums for less coverage, a higher copay, as it turns out the insurance companies I the market place aren't allowed to negotiate prices for drugs/treatments(npr is in a full swing rising-medical-cost campaign right now). I personally, politically, and morally dislike the man, and his party. But he doesn't bear full responsibility to our "welfare dependent society". Actually, I think clinton(the born male) did a whole helluva lot more damage, but anyway.
But also, awesome read clay.
Thanks for posting it.
Thanks, I don't have an armchair opinion. For 15+ years I have dedicated my career to working with this 'element' of society. This epidemic, and I use this word purposely, is growing at an alarming rate. On this thread folks introduce their agendas and pet-peeves, if we stick to raw data and FACTS, it will scare the shit out of you, anger you and foster a sense of frustration that you've never felt before. Then again, statistically, many members on here would also be those we are discussing.
I recently offered a friend a $16hr job working at my institution, Florida retirement, paid benefits, etc......he declined because if he left his $10hr job his family would lose food stamps and Medicaid. Blew me away ....
Last edited:
Roaster's Gallery
Master
Look how much the economy improved under both the presidents you mentioned.
First glance, I took the opening sentence as sarcasm. Which is to say,
Trust me, I don't need more facts and data to become frustrated. I'm plenty pissed-to-the-point-of-seeing-red with the facts and data from 5 years ago. Personally, and I don't know if I can support this with verifiable facts, but i think that's part of the idea. Spin us up, rattle the bag, launch us at each other.
Im gonna take a break. I like everyone currently posting to much, I have a tendency to type faster than I think. You guys are making valid points and I'm gonna stick to reading them for a bit.
*i realized clay wasn't being sarcastic.
Last edited:
Well my stats weren't subjective at all. Here' s a link to the article stating 9% of entitlement benefits go to non-elderly and non-disable non working Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ts-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts/
Here's another take on the whole takers versus makers argument as well.
http://themonkeycage.org/2012/09/there-arent-that-many-takers-in-america/
I'm well aware that people will try to skew data to fit their particular ideology and narrative. Both conservatives and liberals are guilty as hell in doing this. The conservative narrative that some 47% are "takers" and vote democrat to keep their benefits while the other hard working half are smart republicans being fleeced by a bunch of lazy asses is complete and utter propagandized BS imo. There are plenty of hard working and tax paying citizens who vote democratic for many reasons. I'm not one of them and still registered republican but only because I haven't bothered to change my affiliation to independent just yet. It's really hard to have civil political discourse these days. Everything is framed as liberal vs conservative as if that's the only options.
Here's another link to where the actual money goes. It supports the fact that welfare for lazy slackers is not what is driving our debt. 11% percent of the budget goes towards aid that is not social security and healthcare.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ts-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts/
Here's another take on the whole takers versus makers argument as well.
http://themonkeycage.org/2012/09/there-arent-that-many-takers-in-america/
I'm well aware that people will try to skew data to fit their particular ideology and narrative. Both conservatives and liberals are guilty as hell in doing this. The conservative narrative that some 47% are "takers" and vote democrat to keep their benefits while the other hard working half are smart republicans being fleeced by a bunch of lazy asses is complete and utter propagandized BS imo. There are plenty of hard working and tax paying citizens who vote democratic for many reasons. I'm not one of them and still registered republican but only because I haven't bothered to change my affiliation to independent just yet. It's really hard to have civil political discourse these days. Everything is framed as liberal vs conservative as if that's the only options.
Here's another link to where the actual money goes. It supports the fact that welfare for lazy slackers is not what is driving our debt. 11% percent of the budget goes towards aid that is not social security and healthcare.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
Fletch, i think the time is right for the rise of a third party. It may split the vote and ensure another Clinton, but it also may give it enough time to be a actual contender in the legislature.
Imagine if you will.... A party that was serious about cutting spending, tax reform, immigration reform, un-screwing social security, and manages not to take a dump on minorities during a campaign.
Ok, enough dreaming.
Imagine if you will.... A party that was serious about cutting spending, tax reform, immigration reform, un-screwing social security, and manages not to take a dump on minorities during a campaign.
Ok, enough dreaming.
Before I respond-curious what Ya'll think of this. BTW- when Clinton left we were +600million out of debt.... Just sayin
http://www.state.nj.us/agriculture/divisions/fn/pdf/form127.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/agriculture/divisions/fn/pdf/form127.pdf
Last edited:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
FULL ANSWER
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
FULL ANSWER
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Members online
- dbackfan13
- Lurch76
- 7.62x39
- JedClpIT
- nitro
- Tungoil
- Landmine79
- ccc
- Spazzz
- Destincpt
- Jrsalter13
- B0YD0N
- Dragon
- hunter01
- stage20
- tradgear
- boondoggle
- carvertim
- Lincoln0107
- csullivan97
- Welldoya
- Moss
- chef_josh
- madcad2601
- twodogsfym
- Joshy
- Djbama89
- Steven785
- bsmallz01
- jd91
- Ktjones2
- bostic8
- 3blamo
- Shainew79
- Tige
- Gonzolee10
- Wranglerman58
- Ugafan84
- Fodderwing
- Choppersled
- duckhunter
- ironjaw
- elkhunter136
- Chickinn
- mac the knife
- JulesHWatkins
- bama73
- ccvfd1201
- Jevaughn
