pBills Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 I don't consider my money going to booze and drugs efficient. not every homeless person is going to use the money for booze and drugs.
Magox Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 not every homeless person is going to use the money for booze and drugs. Generally speaking, they do. note: to picnic table
DC Tom Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Do you usually read all of his posts in their entirety? It's could be ADD or something. I usually don't read his posts at all. But that's just because he and I have this mutual "You're a !@#$ing pinhead" thing between us.
Chef Jim Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 not every homeless person is going to use the money for booze and drugs. No **** sherlock. But I'd rather give my money to a charity that I know is set up only to do good things for the homeless.
DC Tom Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 But I'd rather give my money to a charity that I know is set up only to do good things for the homeless. Which, where you live, is called "taxes".
Chump Change Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 You're posts are too long, bud. I might read and respond when I have more time to kill, but surely your point(s) could be boiled down a bit and still remain effective. I'm not trying to be a dick, I just think that most people probably breeze over long-winded posts like I do. I almost never post, but Gene, come on. Your response is a joke. And yes, you are a dick by trying to dodge because you know you got nothing. Read his response and try to refute it instead of this chickenschit response. Lightweight...
IDBillzFan Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Which, where you live, is called "taxes". It's obviously not working where he lives because you can barely walk up the steps to the SF civic center without stepping over homeless people camped out right on the freaking steps. Of course, what do you expect from a city that happily brings you "Meatless Mondays."
John Adams Posted April 15, 2010 Author Posted April 15, 2010 I almost never post, but Gene, come on. Your response is a joke. And yes, you are a dick by trying to dodge because you know you got nothing. Read his response and try to refute it instead of this chickenschit response. Lightweight... I agree with Gene on this one. I may sometimes agree with OC but I won't read his multi-paragraph diatribes. If you can't edit your thoughts down to 2 paragraphs, (a) you're not respecting my time, or (b) your post is oververbously didactic (OC's crime) and a waste of time.
IDBillzFan Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Hmmm....maybe it's something to do with OC's writing style. I can usually get through most of LABills posts without suddenly feeling the need to be doing something else. Here's something else for you to read while you're waiting for OC's editor. Biden Knows Jack Schitt Because That's What He Gave to Charities. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his wife, Jill, earned $333,000 in 2009, and gave $4,820 -- 1.44 percent -- of that to charity in cash or in-kind donations, according to their newly released tax forms. Estimates by charitable organizations show that most givers donate between 3 and 5 percent of their income. Biden needs a little more guilt, I guess.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 I almost never post, but Gene, come on. Your response is a joke. And yes, you are a dick by trying to dodge because you know you got nothing. Read his response and try to refute it instead of this chickenschit response. Lightweight... I'm just trying to help, really. What's the point of writing some long rant if your target audience is just going to skim over it and decide it's not worth the effort? As an exercise, see if you can distill the post in question down to its essence and we'll see if it ends up more readable when you're finished. I have faith that you will be able to do so. I agree with Gene on this one. I may sometimes agree with OC but I won't read his multi-paragraph diatribes. If you can't edit your thoughts down to 2 paragraphs, (a) you're not respecting my time, or (b) your post is oververbously didactic (OC's crime) and a waste of time. Thank the sweet baby Jesus, I thought I was the only one.
Magox Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Here's something else for you to read while you're waiting for OC's editor. Biden Knows Jack Schitt Because That's What He Gave to Charities. Biden needs a little more guilt, I guess. Dude come on! He's got many expenses that he has to pay, why you trying to keep the man down?
John Adams Posted April 15, 2010 Author Posted April 15, 2010 Here's something else for you to read while you're waiting for OC's editor. Biden Knows Jack Schitt Because That's What He Gave to Charities. I have no problem with this. He gave 140K to taxes, which is far more to "charity" than most people. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
IDBillzFan Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 I have no problem with this. He gave 140K to taxes, which is far more to "charity" than most people. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM. I don't disagree at all. I was primarily throwing some sarcasm at Frenkle's belief that conservatives don't care about other people, and only exhibit their charitable side because of guilt and tax write-offs.
VABills Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 I haven't read in detail everything. But did anyone point out that while those evil republicans only give to charity because they write it off, don't really get a dollar for dollar reduction in taxes. if you give 10K you really only save what ever your marginal rate is. Say 28%, so while you get a 2800 tax break it in no way comes close to 10,000 you gave away. Of course I know facts are lost on the liberal pinhead crowd, but just thought I'd inject a few facts.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 Here's something else for you to read while you're waiting for OC's editor. Biden Knows Jack Schitt Because That's What He Gave to Charities. Biden needs a little more guilt, I guess. Let's say we need X dollars to cover people requiring charity. Government programs spread the burden of X dollars among all of us working schleps who pay taxes, whether we like it or not. Your thought is that we should get rid of that system and instead let those who are feeling charitable (for whatever reason) contribute X dollars by choice. Does that lead to the charitable people among us contributing more because of those who choose not to contribute? More likely, we simply fall short of X dollars and well, fuk em - it's not my problem...which is where I come to the conclusion that Conservatives/Republicans are selfish in nature. Is my logic twisted enough for you?
Gene Frenkle Posted April 15, 2010 Posted April 15, 2010 I haven't read in detail everything. But did anyone point out that while those evil republicans only give to charity because they write it off, don't really get a dollar for dollar reduction in taxes. if you give 10K you really only save what ever your marginal rate is. Say 28%, so while you get a 2800 tax break it in no way comes close to 10,000 you gave away. Of course I know facts are lost on the liberal pinhead crowd, but just thought I'd inject a few facts. Thanks for the intro to tax write-offs. Done for the day... LET'S GO BUFFALO!!!
VABills Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Thanks for the intro to tax write-offs. Done for the day... LET'S GO BUFFALO!!! So you really thought it was a dollar for dollar tax credit? Guess you're the greedy bastard who never gives to charity. You should try they could use the help from people who care. But you'd rather have the govies take money from the "rich" and give it to their charities, you know the ones that support the dems.
Gene Frenkle Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 So you really thought it was a dollar for dollar tax credit? Guess you're the greedy bastard who never gives to charity. You should try they could use the help from people who care. But you'd rather have the govies take money from the "rich" and give it to their charities, you know the ones that support the dems. SABRES WIN!!! Are you serious? Don't you think that's obvious to anyone who has ever filed taxes?
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 Let's say we need X dollars to cover people requiring charity. Government programs spread the burden of X dollars among all of us working schleps who pay taxes, whether we like it or not. Your thought is that we should get rid of that system and instead let those who are feeling charitable (for whatever reason) contribute X dollars by choice. Does that lead to the charitable people among us contributing more because of those who choose not to contribute? More likely, we simply fall short of X dollars and well, fuk em - it's not my problem...which is where I come to the conclusion that Conservatives/Republicans are selfish in nature. Is my logic twisted enough for you? That is seriously twisted. "Let's say we need X dollars to cover people requiring charity. Government programs spread the burden of X dollars among all of us working schleps who pay taxes, whether we like it or not." Uhhh...what? Hello? If you're forced to give whether you like it or not, then it's not charity!!!!
Thirdborn Posted April 16, 2010 Posted April 16, 2010 No I think we'd demand an arrogance death cage match. DEATH CAGE!!!! DEATH CAGE!!!! DEATH CAGE!!!!
Recommended Posts