|
Welfare system
|
|
Topic Started: Dec 6 2011, 08:19 AM (442 Views)
|
|
IUCOLTFAN
|
Dec 7 2011, 02:57 PM
Post #31
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 10,098
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #131
- Joined:
- February 9, 2008
|
- chops1221
- Dec 7 2011, 02:35 PM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Dec 7 2011, 02:28 PM
- chops1221
- Dec 7 2011, 02:17 PM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Dec 7 2011, 02:04 PM
- chops1221
- Dec 7 2011, 01:55 PM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Dec 7 2011, 01:46 PM
- chops1221
- Dec 7 2011, 01:30 PM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Dec 7 2011, 01:23 PM
- chops1221
- Dec 6 2011, 07:57 PM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Dec 6 2011, 05:22 PM
Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
You shouldn't feel guilty. But I don't expect to get anything back from the SS payments I'll be making when I graduate. I just think it's ironic that he or she thinks the young are stealing from the old when this generation will likely pay into SS but never get anything back.
"You keep saying "the fact is" followed by something without evidence." - Chops "If you're going to claim something as a fact, at least provide a source. Not saying you're wrong, but as Wikipedia would say "[citation needed]"." - Chops ??? So you bust aaron for not backing up his "facts" yet you do the same thing in claiming that "this generation will likely pay into SS and never get aything back"??? The only fact that I see is that people have been told that if they pay into the system (by force), it will be there for them when they retire. The "old" people you speak of just expect to receive what they were told that they would get, whats wrong with that? Maybe your generation will or won't have SS available to you when you retire but that is no reason for you to laugh at those that expect to get what they were promised. When you have 25 yrs work experience and have paid into the system, you will probably view the entire situation differently, imo. If you haven't paid into the system yet why does your opinion even matter? Just sayin'.
Right, I'm not allowed an opinion on something like SS because I'm too young / haven't made enough money. I've paid enough into SS from summer engineering internships to know how it affects a paycheck. You're right about providing a source, though. Should have said "I personally don't expect to receive SS money and am planning for retirement as such" instead of making a claim about the entire generation. I won't dispute that.
I also have my own seperate retirement. Does that mean that I'm lucky and should just write off the money that I am supposed to get thru SS after I am eligible? If the government can't balance their checkbook then they should start phasing it out for your generation. The problem is that the ponzi scheme is so huge that they could never do that. If somebody in this scenario is a thief, it is the federal government. A hard working taxpayer should demand that the government fix the problems, there is nothing wrong with that, imo. If your future employer gave you a 5 yr plan with goals and benchmarks and promised profit sharing or stock options for you meeting those goals, wouldn't you be a little pissed if after meting all those goals you were told that the company simply couldn't afford the promises that the made to you for your hard work? Taxpayers have INVESTED in a system that they are continuously told is a healthy, viable system. Whats wrong with expecting the return you were promised. Whats wrong with being pissed when a person is paid dividends from a system that they never even invested into?
Nothing. But if you are definitely getting that income, how can you complain that the young are stealing from the old?
I never said the young are stealing from the old. I do think that there are lazy/manipulative people that steal from us all. Not sure why expecting less fraud for the betterment of us all is a bad thing??
I was going back to the original quote from the comment I took issue with.
Even if I do receive SS when I retire, why should it be ok for fraudsters to steal your future SS or my kids future SS? Seems to me that a good citizen questions a broken system regardless of if they are getting a check or not. It's the ONLY way to assure that your generation of hardworking taxpayers get what they pay into. So the poster in question looking out for YOUR financial future is funny to you? Wow! Your generation makes it hard to be a concerned citizen. Maybe all of us old fuckers should just stand back, shut out mouths, and sit back to watch and laugh when your time comes to receive your hard earned benefits? Good citizens question their government, especially when it is such a big issue as welfare and SS. If you haven't noticed, this country is not currently in the best financial situation. The current government is adding 1.3 trillion to YOUR debt on a YEARLY basis. Don't you think it is about time that good citizens start asking a few questions?
Sure. This, however, is not a good question: - Quote:
-
The ONES that need it cant get it and we take care of the YOUNG ONES before the Seniors get ANYTHING. Seems to me we are taking from the Older and giving to the Young so they can sit home and Make ALL kind of Babies
Regardless if you think it is a good question or not (not sure it is even in the form of a question), do you think a 70 yr old who paid into a system his entire working life should have his benefits cut for someone who has never paid into the system?
The poster you are bitching about is obviously posting with alot of emotion...not always a good thing, imo. Doesn't change the thought that some get wrongly screwed while others get benefits for doing nothing.....rampant or not.
|

|
| |
|
IUCOLTFAN
|
Dec 7 2011, 03:04 PM
Post #32
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 10,098
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #131
- Joined:
- February 9, 2008
|
- chops1221
- Dec 7 2011, 02:20 PM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Dec 7 2011, 02:00 PM
- chops1221
- Dec 7 2011, 01:39 PM
- hoosierinhogville
- Dec 7 2011, 12:30 PM
- chops1221
- Dec 7 2011, 09:55 AM
There are other things the federal government is better at (or really, required for). Mainly protecting equal rights for minorities throughout the country.
I'm sorry, I consider myself one of the more level headed conservative/libertarian types on this board, but I have to say really the federal government is good at nothing except taking our money and curtailing our freedoms. In all seriousness, maybe I am overlooking something, but can someone please tell me one thing the federal government does fairly, effeciently. and without spending assloads of money?
So you don't see any need for a federal government besides national security? My take on this is human rights related. That is NOT something you want decided by local government, or you might end up with states/counties that still support racial discrimination.
You can't honestly think that in this day and age that a County or entire State could get away with widespread racial discrimination, do you? Seems to me that that would be nearly impossible on the scale of SS or welfare. It is 2011, is everything really still all about race? So if the fed hypothetically wasted 30% of all monies that they touched, it would be ok with you because there may be less racial discrimination? LOL.....that even sounds dumb.
Where the fuck did I say that? I said the federal government has a responsibility to protect human rights. Race was used because it was the easiest example, not in an attempt to make things "about race" Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the statement about wanting to reduce the federal government to only national security. Just curious. So you are saying that receiving welfare is a human rights issue? Do humans have a right to free stuff? Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying. IMO, welfare and the safety net programs are essential to the poor and underpriviledged but that does not make it a "right". The programs should be more compassion based and not "human right" based. You don't have a human right to have the government to force me to feed you and your kids. We do it because we are good compassionate people. Hell, we feed people in many countries. It is out of compassion, it is not a right.
|

|
| |
|
chops1221
|
Dec 7 2011, 03:14 PM
Post #33
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 3,802
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #28
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- IUCOLTFAN
- Dec 7 2011, 03:04 PM
- chops1221
- Dec 7 2011, 02:20 PM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Dec 7 2011, 02:00 PM
- chops1221
- Dec 7 2011, 01:39 PM
- hoosierinhogville
- Dec 7 2011, 12:30 PM
- chops1221
- Dec 7 2011, 09:55 AM
There are other things the federal government is better at (or really, required for). Mainly protecting equal rights for minorities throughout the country.
I'm sorry, I consider myself one of the more level headed conservative/libertarian types on this board, but I have to say really the federal government is good at nothing except taking our money and curtailing our freedoms. In all seriousness, maybe I am overlooking something, but can someone please tell me one thing the federal government does fairly, effeciently. and without spending assloads of money?
So you don't see any need for a federal government besides national security? My take on this is human rights related. That is NOT something you want decided by local government, or you might end up with states/counties that still support racial discrimination.
You can't honestly think that in this day and age that a County or entire State could get away with widespread racial discrimination, do you? Seems to me that that would be nearly impossible on the scale of SS or welfare. It is 2011, is everything really still all about race? So if the fed hypothetically wasted 30% of all monies that they touched, it would be ok with you because there may be less racial discrimination? LOL.....that even sounds dumb.
Where the fuck did I say that? I said the federal government has a responsibility to protect human rights. Race was used because it was the easiest example, not in an attempt to make things "about race" Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the statement about wanting to reduce the federal government to only national security.
Just curious. So you are saying that receiving welfare is a human rights issue? Do humans have a right to free stuff? Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying. IMO, welfare and the safety net programs are essential to the poor and underpriviledged but that does not make it a "right". The programs should be more compassion based and not "human right" based. You don't have a human right to have the government to force me to feed you and your kids. We do it because we are good compassionate people. Hell, we feed people in many countries. It is out of compassion, it is not a right. No, that's not what I was going for at all. I wasn't trying to talk about welfare at all.
I got the impression that people were saying the federal government wasn't useful for anything. I feel that you could do away with a lot of stuff the federal government does (doesn't mean I think we SHOULD, just that you probably could), but it absolutely needs to establish basic rights and protect them.
Another example (not a right) would be food safety - Maybe it isn't run the best right now, but that is something I feel should be a national standard.
|
|
| |
|
eelbor
|
Dec 7 2011, 04:06 PM
Post #34
|
Zen Master
- Posts:
- 10,606
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- IUCOLTFAN
- Dec 7 2011, 02:57 PM
Regardless if you think it is a good question or not (not sure it is even in the form of a question), do you think a 70 yr old who paid into a system his entire working life should have his benefits cut for someone who has never paid into the system?
The poster you are bitching about is obviously posting with alot of emotion...not always a good thing, imo. Doesn't change the thought that some get wrongly screwed while others get benefits for doing nothing.....rampant or not. IUColt... Social Security is running into a problem because of the baby boomers. There are a greater number of old farts claiming entitlement because they 'paid in', but in general they are taking out more than they put in. Meanwhile, there are less and less workers like you, me and Chops to make up the difference. It is not a difficult concept. Entitlement knows no age barriers.
Myth 2: Workers get less out of the system than they paid in While the current Social Security payroll tax is 12.4 percent on income up to $110,100 a year (2012 figure), the tax rates and the wage base were much lower when most current retirees were working and contributing to the system (for 2011 the Social Security tax has been reduced to 10.4 percent). As recently as 1972, the maximum payroll tax paid (by the employee) was only $419 a year. Even including interest earned since the contributions were made, most retirees receive back significantly more than they contributed.
This may not be true for current workers, since both the tax and the wage base upon which the tax is determined have increased dramatically since the 1970s. Whether current workers will recover their entire investment will depend in part on how long they live, whether they are married and whether they earned a high or low wage.
|

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed
Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
|
| |
|
IUCOLTFAN
|
Dec 7 2011, 04:33 PM
Post #35
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 10,098
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #131
- Joined:
- February 9, 2008
|
- eelbor
- Dec 7 2011, 04:06 PM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Dec 7 2011, 02:57 PM
Regardless if you think it is a good question or not (not sure it is even in the form of a question), do you think a 70 yr old who paid into a system his entire working life should have his benefits cut for someone who has never paid into the system?
The poster you are bitching about is obviously posting with alot of emotion...not always a good thing, imo. Doesn't change the thought that some get wrongly screwed while others get benefits for doing nothing.....rampant or not.
IUColt... Social Security is running into a problem because of the baby boomers. There are a greater number of old farts claiming entitlement because they 'paid in', but in general they are taking out more than they put in. Meanwhile, there are less and less workers like you, me and Chops to make up the difference. It is not a difficult concept. Entitlement knows no age barriers. Myth 2: Workers get less out of the system than they paid in While the current Social Security payroll tax is 12.4 percent on income up to $110,100 a year (2012 figure), the tax rates and the wage base were much lower when most current retirees were working and contributing to the system (for 2011 the Social Security tax has been reduced to 10.4 percent). As recently as 1972, the maximum payroll tax paid (by the employee) was only $419 a year. Even including interest earned since the contributions were made, most retirees receive back significantly more than they contributed.
This may not be true for current workers, since both the tax and the wage base upon which the tax is determined have increased dramatically since the 1970s. Whether current workers will recover their entire investment will depend in part on how long they live, whether they are married and whether they earned a high or low wage. I understand that.....but allowing people (some fraudulently) to receive benefits from a system where they contributed nothing is part of the problem also. We can't continue to just kick the can down the road and expect the next guy to "fix" the problem. It is time that people start demanding answers to some very tough problems, imo. I/we were not the ones that sold the SS plan to the people. I/we did not set up the rates that would be paid. The people who did should fix these issues, that would be our elected officials. With the money that we pay for our government (elected officials and there staffs), surely there is somebody there that is intelligent enough to figure out a solution or maybe somebody needs to grow some nuts and tell the citizens the truth.....our current system is broken and will never survive.
|

|
| |
|
chops1221
|
Dec 7 2011, 04:49 PM
Post #36
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 3,802
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #28
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- IUCOLTFAN
- Dec 7 2011, 04:33 PM
- eelbor
- Dec 7 2011, 04:06 PM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Dec 7 2011, 02:57 PM
Regardless if you think it is a good question or not (not sure it is even in the form of a question), do you think a 70 yr old who paid into a system his entire working life should have his benefits cut for someone who has never paid into the system?
The poster you are bitching about is obviously posting with alot of emotion...not always a good thing, imo. Doesn't change the thought that some get wrongly screwed while others get benefits for doing nothing.....rampant or not.
IUColt... Social Security is running into a problem because of the baby boomers. There are a greater number of old farts claiming entitlement because they 'paid in', but in general they are taking out more than they put in. Meanwhile, there are less and less workers like you, me and Chops to make up the difference. It is not a difficult concept. Entitlement knows no age barriers. Myth 2: Workers get less out of the system than they paid in While the current Social Security payroll tax is 12.4 percent on income up to $110,100 a year (2012 figure), the tax rates and the wage base were much lower when most current retirees were working and contributing to the system (for 2011 the Social Security tax has been reduced to 10.4 percent). As recently as 1972, the maximum payroll tax paid (by the employee) was only $419 a year. Even including interest earned since the contributions were made, most retirees receive back significantly more than they contributed.
This may not be true for current workers, since both the tax and the wage base upon which the tax is determined have increased dramatically since the 1970s. Whether current workers will recover their entire investment will depend in part on how long they live, whether they are married and whether they earned a high or low wage.
I understand that.....but allowing people (some fraudulently) to receive benefits from a system where they contributed nothing is part of the problem also. We can't continue to just kick the can down the road and expect the next guy to "fix" the problem. It is time that people start demanding answers to some very tough problems, imo. I/we were not the ones that sold the SS plan to the people. I/we did not set up the rates that would be paid. The people who did should fix these issues, that would be our elected officials. With the money that we pay for our government (elected officials and there staffs), surely there is somebody there that is intelligent enough to figure out a solution or maybe somebody needs to grow some nuts and tell the citizens the truth.....our current system is broken and will never survive. See, that I can agree with. Absolutely welfare fraud should be fought, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It just worries me when people start demonizing those on welfare as lazy and ungrateful.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 7 2011, 09:15 PM
Post #37
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
Chops, the United States government should ensure that it's states are ensuring freedom & equality for it's citizens, and protecting both. This would fall under your racial discrimination example IMO. Food safety standards are a great example of where I disagree. If Texas wants it's own standards, they should be able to do so, and if they aren't good enough, they will lose money to states...on the other hand, perhaps Texas wants a higher standard than that of other states, and thus attracts business. Either way, it is better regulated, monitored, and controlled at a state or even more local level IMO.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 7 2011, 09:16 PM
Post #38
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
Hog, I think our federal government does a great job in developing an extremely high quality military....the best in the world in fact. That is not to say that they utilize it properly, and don't overpay for it to begin with, because I'm sure you and I are on the same page in that regard...but it is hard to argue that we haven't created an extremely mighty military.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Dec 7 2011, 09:59 PM
Post #39
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
Any generation who says their generation has it tougher than other generations is right.
And wrong.
|
|
| |
|
chops1221
|
Dec 8 2011, 02:02 AM
Post #40
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 3,802
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #28
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Dec 7 2011, 09:15 PM
Chops, the United States government should ensure that it's states are ensuring freedom & equality for it's citizens, and protecting both. This would fall under your racial discrimination example IMO. Food safety standards are a great example of where I disagree. If Texas wants it's own standards, they should be able to do so, and if they aren't good enough, they will lose money to states...on the other hand, perhaps Texas wants a higher standard than that of other states, and thus attracts business. Either way, it is better regulated, monitored, and controlled at a state or even more local level IMO. I think what you're saying makes sense in theory, but it ignores the reality of the situation. Especially for children, who can't just up and move to another state.
Also I need to stop staying until 2 AM to help my students with their course projects.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 8 2011, 09:17 AM
Post #41
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- chops1221
- Dec 8 2011, 02:02 AM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 7 2011, 09:15 PM
Chops, the United States government should ensure that it's states are ensuring freedom & equality for it's citizens, and protecting both. This would fall under your racial discrimination example IMO. Food safety standards are a great example of where I disagree. If Texas wants it's own standards, they should be able to do so, and if they aren't good enough, they will lose money to states...on the other hand, perhaps Texas wants a higher standard than that of other states, and thus attracts business. Either way, it is better regulated, monitored, and controlled at a state or even more local level IMO.
I think what you're saying makes sense in theory, but it ignores the reality of the situation. Especially for children, who can't just up and move to another state. Also I need to stop staying until 2 AM to help my students with their course projects. do you really think that people are going to vote in local officials who intend to poison their children with poor food safety standards? A national standard can still be adhered to through the private market, which states and/or individual businesses can choose to subscribe to.
I believe that parents in any state right now can grow food in their backyards with no safety standards whatsoever, however if those foods are harmful to their children, they would still be charged with child abuse or neglect.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Dec 8 2011, 05:01 PM
Post #42
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- Mr Gray
- Dec 8 2011, 09:17 AM
- chops1221
- Dec 8 2011, 02:02 AM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 7 2011, 09:15 PM
Chops, the United States government should ensure that it's states are ensuring freedom & equality for it's citizens, and protecting both. This would fall under your racial discrimination example IMO. Food safety standards are a great example of where I disagree. If Texas wants it's own standards, they should be able to do so, and if they aren't good enough, they will lose money to states...on the other hand, perhaps Texas wants a higher standard than that of other states, and thus attracts business. Either way, it is better regulated, monitored, and controlled at a state or even more local level IMO.
I think what you're saying makes sense in theory, but it ignores the reality of the situation. Especially for children, who can't just up and move to another state. Also I need to stop staying until 2 AM to help my students with their course projects.
do you really think that people are going to vote in local officials who intend to poison their children with poor food safety standards? A national standard can still be adhered to through the private market, which states and/or individual businesses can choose to subscribe to. I believe that parents in any state right now can grow food in their backyards with no safety standards whatsoever, however if those foods are harmful to their children, they would still be charged with child abuse or neglect. The intention of those who cut food safety standards can be one of two reasons:
1. they are influenced financially by special interest groups and are naive to the 'facts' they are being told by them or don't care if they are true. Listen, I love meat. (that's what she said) I also know that the practices of industry are very lacking, but their lobbying industry and political influence is very great. Both sides of the aisle are affected by lobbying groups.....let me ask you this, do you believe that close to 100% of democratic congressman are truly pro-choice and 100% of republican congressman are pro-life?
2. they believe the risks are overstated and the financial costs of it too high and could be better used elsewhere.
No one is saying that people are running for office on the platform of poisoning children. But I have yet to see a single politician run with the intent of destroying the economy.....yet it happens.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 8 2011, 09:59 PM
Post #43
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Dec 8 2011, 05:01 PM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 8 2011, 09:17 AM
- chops1221
- Dec 8 2011, 02:02 AM
- Mr Gray
- Dec 7 2011, 09:15 PM
Chops, the United States government should ensure that it's states are ensuring freedom & equality for it's citizens, and protecting both. This would fall under your racial discrimination example IMO. Food safety standards are a great example of where I disagree. If Texas wants it's own standards, they should be able to do so, and if they aren't good enough, they will lose money to states...on the other hand, perhaps Texas wants a higher standard than that of other states, and thus attracts business. Either way, it is better regulated, monitored, and controlled at a state or even more local level IMO.
I think what you're saying makes sense in theory, but it ignores the reality of the situation. Especially for children, who can't just up and move to another state. Also I need to stop staying until 2 AM to help my students with their course projects.
do you really think that people are going to vote in local officials who intend to poison their children with poor food safety standards? A national standard can still be adhered to through the private market, which states and/or individual businesses can choose to subscribe to. I believe that parents in any state right now can grow food in their backyards with no safety standards whatsoever, however if those foods are harmful to their children, they would still be charged with child abuse or neglect.
The intention of those who cut food safety standards can be one of two reasons: 1. they are influenced financially by special interest groups and are naive to the 'facts' they are being told by them or don't care if they are true. Listen, I love meat. (that's what she said) I also know that the practices of industry are very lacking, but their lobbying industry and political influence is very great. Both sides of the aisle are affected by lobbying groups.....let me ask you this, do you believe that close to 100% of democratic congressman are truly pro-choice and 100% of republican congressman are pro-life? 2. they believe the risks are overstated and the financial costs of it too high and could be better used elsewhere. No one is saying that people are running for office on the platform of poisoning children. But I have yet to see a single politician run with the intent of destroying the economy.....yet it happens. I think you have MUCH more honest politics the closer they get to local.....there is less alternative motivation such as the power and tremendous wealth that comes with national politics.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Dec 8 2011, 10:38 PM
Post #44
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
From what you stated, it didn't seem like you were really talking about local politics....I think you were talking about individual states. I consider local politics to be at the city and county level. It would seem to me as well if you fifty states with different standards, it becomes impossible to enforce those laws for food transported from one state to another.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Dec 8 2011, 11:06 PM
Post #45
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Dec 8 2011, 10:38 PM
From what you stated, it didn't seem like you were really talking about local politics....I think you were talking about individual states. I consider local politics to be at the city and county level. It would seem to me as well if you fifty states with different standards, it becomes impossible to enforce those laws for food transported from one state to another. smart states would work together to ensure that they are able to transport from one to another...etc. Bad states (states with bad leaders) will suffer until better leaders are put in place.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|