In five words.

"No income tax? No vote."

In five words.

"No income tax? No vote."

In five words.

"No income tax? No vote."

In five words.

"No income tax? No vote."

I'd take it one step further. If you get a check from government, no vote.

No government employee will ever vote for a 'balanced budget' candidate.

Me too. It would be fun to watch the garbage stack up in front yards and idiots with confused looks on their faces.

'Cause they'd be waiting for the government to pick it up.

'Cause they'd be waiting for the government to pick it up.

Because anarchy doesn't work.

I was responding to dumbass.

I knew his name wasn't Dave. Or Clark.

I'd give the vote to anyone who honorably served in the miltary, too.

Not him. He's far from dumb.

In five words.

"No income tax? No vote."

Hell we'd be pointing in the right direction if we could keep the democrats from voting out of the cemetery.

Then we could focus on making sure that the cacksuckers only vote ONCE.

Neither does punishing poor people for being poor.

...beats the hell out of rewarding them for being poor, and punishing people for being ambitious ?

...beats the hell out of rewarding them for being poor, and punishing people for being ambitious ?

Who wouldn't vote to take care of "poor" people that need taking care of?

How about City employees?

I knew his name wasn't Dave. Or Clark.

I'd give the vote to anyone who honorably served in the miltary, too.

Vote?
2. Or documentation you own property or at least pay a mortgage.

as long as they arent able to unionize .

How about City employees?

The current-serving military vote doesn't count now.

Those votes are not counted til waaaaay after the election results are announced.

Are you stupid?

By Eric Eversole - - Monday, April 16, 2012
Military voters must feel like Bill Murray’s character in GroundhogDay. Election after election, certain state and local election officials fail to meet the deadline for sending absentee ballots. The outcome is often the same - thousands of ballots are received too close to the election to be returned or, if they are returned, the ballots arrive after the deadline to be counted. In either case, the military voter is disenfranchised.

Then enlighten me and tell my how current-serving military vote doesn't count.

I'm sure I can learn much from you.

Voting, one of the most sacredly held rights of the American people, is often denied to service members who are away from home at election time and it seems there are a number of reasons. Even though there have been some changes made to electoral law that certainly help, some election experts don’t believe they go far enough to stop the disenfranchisement of military voters.

“The predominate issue surrounding military votes are the disenfranchisement of military members,” said Michael James Barton, an election judge who has also served as a roving election observer over four states. “In essence, 45 days is required to enable military to vote, but clerks of court all around the nation will send out absentee applications or absentee ballots after the deadline is passed — all but ensuring that the ballot will arrive after election day.”

Damn, and all those years that I cast a vote, in Florida, in person and they didn't count.

I kinda like that idea.

Dave

Umm.. retirees on social security? Military vets on disability or military pensions?

I'd take it one step further. If you get a check from government, no vote.

No government employee will ever vote for a 'balanced budget' candidate.

You actually thought your vote in Florida counted?

You are smarter than I originally suspected.

Would they vote for a candidate that supported a balanced budget......if it meant cuts to their entitlement?

So you consider people withdrawing social security that they paid into all of their lives, and any payment to military veterans as people living on "entitlements"?

Gotcha.

I'd rather see a civil war started than see them denied their vote because you don't like how they "might" vote.

Actually, Social Security is an entitlement. The recipients are entitled, after paying in all their lives. It is a Ponzi scheme, nonetheless. Vote after vote, politicians have turned it into more than originally intended.

Welfare is just a handout, not an entitlement. You've fallen victim to MSM's definitions.

Would they vote for a candidate that supported a balanced budget......if it meant cuts to their entitlement?

In five words.

"No income tax? No vote."

I'd take it one step further. If you get a check from government, no vote.

No government employee will ever vote for a 'balanced budget' candidate.

I agree, retired and disabled Veterans ate filth and should just have their organs harvested for the betterment of mankind then use what is left to feed the sharks. BTW, This would mean all active duty service members who put their asses on the line every day do not deserve to vote either.

Where are all the educated people in this discussion. When this country was established, there was no income tax. Women didn't vote and only property owners had a vote. This was simple and effective.

Nobody wearing sandals or dreadlocks had any say in what the government did with your money or property. We funded a civil war without income taxes and lived quite well before income taxes and thousands of others since then.

Let's get back to where we started...

Do you have a reasonable response......TO A RECENT POST?

With 130,000,000,000,000+ (that is 130 TRILLION) of unfunded liabilities due in the not-too-distant future......how would you plan to make it all work?

Borrow more money?

Mike, I served 24 years and have 6 gold stripes on my dress uniform for 24 years of continuous good conduct. I busted my ass all my life and raised six kids without a dime of government help. I had to quit when my service connected disability made me no longer safe on the road. It sounds like in your eyes I am now the bad guy and should be punished.

I am debt free too but still should not have the right to vote? You said it, not me. 1911 is still loaded and ready. You man enough to solve just one problem, a sucking worthless leach on society who thinks he should have the right to vote. Hell, you can keep the 1911 afterwords.

Yes we are out of debt. But I am 100% disabled, 66 and have an inoperable back injury not considered in my disability. I get VA and SS and that is all. It would be better if you just pulled the trigger for me and maybe for my wife. We would not like starving to death. The plus side it would keep us from voting.

The name, address and phone number are real as is the 1911.

My concern is with the longevity of the greatest country on earth.

Still have not got an answer concerning your answer to the dire financial problems this country faces.

Who should sacrifice?

And please, refrain from assuming you are the only person on the planet that has been handed disadvantages in life.

Reduce the size of federal government, reduce government waste, get the feds out of stuff the feds should never have been involved with,

How do you EVER reduce the size of government, when folks are voting themselves gifts from the public treasury?

Please explain how we get to this responsible government spending?

Then how do we MAINTAIN it?

So you don't think we can fix anything, but you also think we can change the laws to remove voters who don't vote the way you like them to?

Use logic much?

I'd be willing to go with Abbott's call for a Constitutional Convention to use amendments to usher in needed changes, for a start.

And please, refrain from assuming you are the only person on the planet that has been handed disadvantages in life.

Don't be an ass. I am only one of thousands of veterans who got hurt. Walk into a VA Hospital some time, you can go in there is no cover charge. Look at those who went to war and left big pieces of their bodies and minds for you. Then tell them all why they should not have the right to vote. Then head out to some military base and look at those young and women, the finest this country has to offer, and tell them why they should not have the right to vote if they live long enough to retire or should get hurt while serving.

I'd take it one step further. If you get a check from government, no vote.

Single moms ain't going to like that.



Dave

In five words.

"No income tax? No vote."

In five words.

"No income tax? No vote."

I'll go farther than that," If you don't own real estate, you don't vote"!!! In other words, you need to have skin in the game!! memtb

Who wouldn't vote to take care of "poor" people that need taking care of?

I'd take it one step further. If you get a check from government, no vote.

No government employee will ever vote for a 'balanced budget' candidate.

Depends on your version of .gov employee but I am for balanced budget every time I can see that option... it only is like use balancing our checkbook.

Broad brush there buddy...

I see you never answered my question, but you might want to take a look at what % of the budget goes to MILITARY pensions.

Beside the fact, I as a veteran probably have paid (and continue to pay) more in taxes than most probably make (as compared to the Median US income),not to mention owning more than one property, your remarks are obvious to me that you have no idea the price of freedom is a value the protected (YOU) shall never know.

Honestly do not have time to compare shoe sizes.

And, how does your PATRIOmeter operate? Gotta get one of those.

Who suggests cutting military pensions? The goal is a balanced budget, where politicians cannot buy votes with money borrowed in other's names.

In my rather limited experience, folks that 'desire' being perceived as wealthy......aren't always.
If I had a nickel every time I heard the 'country clubbers' complaining about their kids' student loans....

Their club membership is more important than paying for their child's education. Ripe pickin's for the student-loan forgiveness candidate.

My suggestion would be......if you're all that.....forego your government check(s), for the good of the country.

I'd take it one step further. If you get a check from government, no vote.

No government employee will ever vote for a 'balanced budget' candidate.

You just want to take away our right to vote. I did not write the post below, you did!

WELL......DUH!!!

Where is the contradiction? I have not backed off the whole thing......it's still RIGHT TO VOTE.

Why do you CONTINUE TO tie your right to vote with TAKING AWAY your government check?

Do you think a welfare recipient would do the same?

I live on SS and VA disability, that is all we have. Therefore, according to your statements you want to take away my right to vote.




What part of your statement are you not understanding?

Yep.....if you're a government-check-casher.....any gov't-check-casher.....you should NOT be allowed to vote yourself even LARGER gifts from the public treasury. Sorry, no exceptions.

We don't treat our veterans that way in America. Or shouldn't. Removing federal votes from federal employees, I'm good with. Nothing more than that. In my world, vets go to the top of the voter registries. If no one else votes, they do. Period.

So where is that lever specifically in the voting booth?

That would be a tough sell, Rick. But, like your thinking. I will take your ideas into consideration when final-drafting my master vote-stripping plan.

It doesn't take a felony to lose your rights. Politicians can legally take them away. Domestic abuse laws have proved that. No felony required.

Let's just strip ALL government-check-cashers of their right to vote.......til we get the balanced budget amendment. Then, our politicians cannot throw out more candy at the re-election parade. Future generations would thank us.

OK you win. This government leach will not vote even though I am FOR a BALANCED BUDGET AND WOULD VOTE TO GET A BALANCED BUDGET. Let me know when or if I get to vote again. BTW I am still waiting for you to come pull the trigger. I would think you would be thrilled to get rid of veteran trash like me. Better hurry, it is starting to look like you don't have the balls to act.

My stability if fine, your balls to get rid of those you don't want having any saying in your world is what is in question.

I still would like to see you go to a VA hospital then go to ant big military base and tell all those folks why they can't vote.

I also find it funny you want to take away the vote of Vets and active military who vote true conservative. It is like shooting yourself in the foot. FWIW: The only way you can stop me form voting is pulling the trigger.

Republicans are......politicians.

Gingrich was lambasted for trying to balance the budget. Starving 'poor' kids with cuts from the school lunch program. Actually just slowing budget growth, but didn't matter.

The balanced budget has to be permanent law going forward. Not just one year of it.

Government-check-takers will get cuts if the budget is balanced one year. Taxes will raise too. G-C-C's will vote out anyone acting responsibly. Politicians quickly learn it is no money from their pocket if they borrow enough money to grow government and make EVERYONE HAPPY for now.

Will Repeat:

Given a balanced budget law.....

If tax-payers vote for tax cuts and get them....government shrinks in size and cost.

If government-check-cashers vote in their best interest....government grows. Politicians promise more and more, election after election.

Period...done deal. No other options.

Given an eventual majority of government-check-taker voters......how will we ever get to a balanced budget?

Damn.... I've been waiting for 60 years for someone as smart as you to come along to answer this question;

WHO do we owe the 150 trillion bucks to?

Damn.... I've been waiting for 60 years for someone as smart as you to come along to answer this question;

WHO do we owe the 150 trillion bucks to?

While federal unfunded liabilities are important, state-level unfunded pension liabilities also pose serious obstacles. In Texas, the recent 2013 Employees Retirement System (ERS) Valuation Report outlines the funding shortages this pension system faces and there is some indication it may be unable to pay beneficiaries by 2052.

The federal unfunded liabilities are catastrophic for future taxpayers and economic growth. At usdebtclock.org, federal unfunded liabilities are estimated at near $127 trillion, which is roughly $1.1 million per taxpayer and nearly double 2012’s total world output.

With about 134,000 active members in Texas’ ERS at the end of fiscal year 2013, the total unfunded liability was $7.2 billion—or $54,000 per active member. Despite the much smaller future net debt obligations in ERS compared with federal programs, there are similarities how we got here.

The authors’ state, “today there are about 4 payees for every 1 beneficiary, but by the year 2030 there will only be 2 payees for every 1 beneficiary. Simple arithmetic will note that this is not sustainable over the long run.”

To understand the magnitude of this problem, the authors note one solution that includes all the following: “raise income taxes by 17 percent, raise payroll taxes by 24 percent, cut federal purchases by 26 percent, and cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by 11 percent.”

In the current political and economic environment, these changes are highly unlikely, but it shows the substantial economic costs associated with these large unfunded liabilities.

State pensions across the country also face this generational accounting problem, whereby an author discusses his research in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled “The Hidden Danger in Public Pension Funds” stating, “The ratio of active public employees to retirees has fallen drastically, according to the State Budget Crisis Task Force. Today it is 1.75 to 1; in 1950, it was 7 to 1. This means that a loss in pension investments has three times the impact on state and local budgets than 40 years ago.”

In addition to an aging population in Texas creating substantial challenges with funding ERS, it is also riddled with a problem many state pension portfolio managers face: low rates of return on risk-free assets, such as a one-year Treasury security that returns less than 1 percent.

As these managers choose riskier investments to gain a higher rate of return, the study cited in the WSJ op-ed notes that the standard deviation of public pension investments to state and local budgets—a good measure of risk—has increased 10-fold from about 2 percent in 1975 to 20 percent today. Along with fewer people contributing to these pensions, riskier investments should be of grave concern to all.

Since the actuarial funded ratio of ERS is 77 percent based on an 8 percent annual rate of return, this rate of return and the risk-taking portfolio managers must use to gain this return are vital. Over the last five years, the fund’s annual return was 6 percent and 7.1 percent over the last ten years. Although the ten-year annual average was close to 8 percent, there is no guarantee this will continue, which could dramatically lower the funded ratio.

Clearly, the generational accounting problem burdening programs at the federal level also burden Texas’ pensions and the more risky assets portfolio managers must invest in are increasing the susceptibility of an even lower funded ratio in the future.

i remember those Bush era checks. bought me a gun or few. almost made me forget about the whole iraq fuggup.

i remember those Bush era checks. bought me a gun or few. almost made me forget about the whole iraq fuggup.

How are you going to fix it?

The U.S. Postal Service, which has suffered chronic losses year after year, saw costs again outpace income in 2015 as higher benefits expenses and more labor-intensive shipping and package business ate away at adjusted profit.
The agency posted so-called controllable income of $1.2 billion for the year, down from $1.4 billion in 2014. Controllable income excludes a $5.7 billion government-mandated payment for retirement benefits, among other costs.
Meanwhile, controllable operating expenses climbed by $1.3 billion to reach $67.6 billion, reflecting what the agency called “substantial financial pressure that demonstrates the need for legislative reform.”
According to Postmaster General Megan J. Brennan, any business growth and operational efficiencies won't be enough without “the enactment of legislation that makes our retiree health-benefit system affordable and that provides increased pricing and product flexibility.”
For the 2015 fiscal year, the Postal Service recorded a net loss of $5.1 billion, compared with a loss of $5.5 billion in 2014. The agency reported revenue this year of $68.9 billion, up from $67.8 billion. Operating expenses inched up 0.9% to $73.8 billion.
For the year, the Postal Service had total mail volume of 154.2 billion pieces, down from 155.5 billion last year.
While shipping and package volume climbed 14%, bringing with it added labor costs, first-class mail and standard mail volume fell by 2.2% and 0.3% respectively.
In seeking to keep pace with the digital era, the postal service has been relying increasingly on its package business as e-commerce takes off.
Looking ahead, the postal service expects added pressure on results with the slated rollback of an exigent surcharge that has provided an estimated $3.5 billion in revenue since its inception.
Last month, the agency said it would seek to increase its commercial-package shipping prices by an average of 9.5% and by double digits for its bread-and-butter business of shipping packages weighing less than a pound.
The highest price increases have been requested to start in mid-January for packages that weigh under a pound, including for Parcel Select products, which are used by United Parcel Service, FedEx and Amazon.com Inc. Those companies drop packages off at the local post office, then trucks deliver the packages to residential doorsteps. Average revenue for USPS on these is about $1.74.

So...that means you're all in for Cruz?

What part of your statement are you not understanding? quote]

Future generations depend on responsible financial practices.

Responsible tax-payers will make wise choices (votes) when it comes to spending. quote]


Sheesh. You be one polly-anna mofo, you be.

You just want to take away our right to vote. I did not write the post below, you did!

In five words.

"No income tax? No vote."

During the last days of BushII admin., they sent out a special "Tax refund" check trying to stimulate the economy. Many of the workers at our clinic where curious as to why they didn't get a check. I asked them how much income tax they paid. They thought it unfair they didn't get the "refund" if they didn't pay income tax.

I'm in!!!!!!!!!!!

them checks bought me more than a few guns

Fugg it
Taxes and death
Cant advoid either.

Earned every penny of it mikey.
Doing schit your azz never would do......
You are astute if giving enough stink bait to bite.


LMFAO!!!!

Renegade is still cleaning the sand off his gear. He’s right too that not everyone would do what he’s done for this country. Thank ya