xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#14627 Dec 1, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. All children should be able to eat. Children eating is more important than greasing the palms of Kasich's buddies.
Greasing the palms is bringing a lot of jobs here. You wouldn't know about that. If this were a Democrat Governor who did the exact same thing except create a bureaucracy instead of Jobs Ohio, you would be all giddy at the results. You wouldn't be able to stop talking about it.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#14628 Dec 1, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so children would starve without government? Why is it no children were starving when I was in school? Oh, that's right. We had those other people feed us. They were..........eh.....what were they called now? Oh, now I remember. They were called parents.
There were hungry kids when you were in school. You were just to oblivious to see them. Of course parents should feed their kids. But in a country as ridiculously wealthy as this one, there is no excuse for choosing to have a child go hungry instead of paying some taxes when the parents drop the ball. But if you would rather your government say to Hell with those kids, that's between you, your conscience and your god. I am just thankful that you are a minority in this country.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#14629 Dec 1, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Greasing the palms is bringing a lot of jobs here. You wouldn't know about that. If this were a Democrat Governor who did the exact same thing except create a bureaucracy instead of Jobs Ohio, you would be all giddy at the results. You wouldn't be able to stop talking about it.
Since that program isn't even funded yet, I'm not sure how many jobs can be connected to it. But it would be much better for the government to cut out the middle man and do its own marketing. Why should the governor's buddies be allowed to suck off Ohio's tit?
This is why

Fort Jennings, OH

#14632 Dec 1, 2012
Valid reasons why John should win and what he said.
http://adf.ly/58r3K
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#14633 Dec 1, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
There were hungry kids when you were in school. You were just to oblivious to see them. Of course parents should feed their kids. But in a country as ridiculously wealthy as this one, there is no excuse for choosing to have a child go hungry instead of paying some taxes when the parents drop the ball. But if you would rather your government say to Hell with those kids, that's between you, your conscience and your god. I am just thankful that you are a minority in this country.
We'll see. It's only a matter of time.

If a parent is not providing lunch for their children, then what else are they not providing for them when out of school? I mean, to me, that's a clear indication of abuse and the children should be taken away from such parents-not give them free lunch as if it solves anything. I know our government gives way more food stamps than a family can eat. Come on. Make your kids lunch with those food stamp goodies.

I'm sure you disagree with my statement because deep down inside, you know this lunch thing is nothing more than a government indoctrination project, training kids to be dependent on government from young on; a cradle to grave introduction program.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#14634 Dec 1, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Since that program isn't even funded yet, I'm not sure how many jobs can be connected to it. But it would be much better for the government to cut out the middle man and do its own marketing. Why should the governor's buddies be allowed to suck off Ohio's tit?
They aren't. It's called a paid service. You know, like when you get your car fixed. You pay the shop X amount of money and they agree to provide X amount of services. This is no different. Government doesn't do anything better than the private market.
Wake up

Portsmouth, OH

#14635 Dec 1, 2012
Obama’s Now Borrowed More Than All Presidents from Washington to GW Bush!!!!!Dec 1, 2012

The federal government has now borrowed more money during Barack Obama’s time as president than it did in the period lasting from the time President George Washington took the oath office until July 2, 2001, more than five months into the first term of President George W. Bush.

At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, when President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the Treasury. At the close of business this Thursday, it stood at $16,323,083,449,604.98.

That means the debt has increased $5,696,206,400,691.90 during Obama’s presidency.

On July 2, 2001, more than five months after President George W. Bush entered office, the national debt was $5,693,220,327,798.14, according to the Treasury. By the close of business on July 3, 2001, it had risen to 5,698,195,769,465.40. Since then, the debt has never again dropped below $5,696,206,400,691.90—the amount it has increased in less than one full term of Obama.
Wake up

Portsmouth, OH

#14636 Dec 1, 2012
November 30, 2012 Obama Wants Dictatorial Power to Increase Debt!!!! The former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and current Treasury boss Timothy Geithner has informed Republicans that Obama wants absolute authority to increase the national debt.

Geithner’s proposal was met with derision and laughter by Republicans.

“Well, it’s outrageous,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told Fox News when asked about Obama’s plan to personally dictate the finances of the United States.“It’s profoundly irresponsible. So that’s a crazy idea and I’m amazed that Secretary Geithner had the courage to float that yesterday.”

The idea floated by Geithner would give the president sole power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling at any time. Congress could pass a resolution to stop the increase, but it would require a two-thirds vote of both chambers to pass and could still be vetoed by the president.

As it now stands, the so-called debt ceiling can only be increased following a vote by Congress.

Prior to the First World War, Congress directly authorized the amount borrowed through the Treasury Department, but this was changed in 1917 to pay for a scheduled war. The increase was termed a debt ceiling. It has been raised 78 times since 1917 .

In order to raise the debt ceiling, Congress must enact specific legislation that must be signed by the president. Obama now wants to raise the debt ceiling and borrow money from the Federal Reserve without the approval of Congress or the American people.

Allowing Obama to unilaterally jack up the debt is unconstitutional. Article One of the Constitution assigns the authority to “borrow Money on the credit of the United States” to Congress, not the executive.

“This is not just a fetishization of the Constitution,” writes John Carney.“Even if we were starting from scratch, we’d want to incorporate a requirement for Congressional approval of debt issuance. Congressional approval makes defaulting on debt far less likely than it would be if the executive branch could issue debt on its own.”

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#14637 Dec 1, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the closest thing I could find to any GOP proposal.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-gop-su...
Frankly, I hope the GOP continues this stance. When everyone's taxes go up because the GOP won't reduce them just to protect the 1%, they will have taken another giant step toward political irrelevance. We will have to suffer for a couple years, but then the house cleaning will begin.
That one is similar to Ryan plan I think. Suffering for a couple of years is nothing compared to Bushs' eight years.
Pelosi thinks Dems can force a vote.
I hope so. More Americans need to see what they're about, and it is not for the people.

Pelosi Puts The Squeeze On House GOP Over Bush Tax Cuts - tpmdc tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/pelosi-bo... ...

1 day ago ... Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi thinks she can get them started again.... Pelosi said she'll take a procedural step to force a vote on extending the ...
Pelosi Threatens Discharge Petition to Force Vote on ... www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-contro... ...

1 day ago ... "House Speaker John Boehner says budget negotiations with the White House have stalled. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi thinks she can get them.... Pelosi said she'll take a procedural step to force a vote on extending the ...
Pelosi Threatens To Force A Vote On Bush Tax Cuts For Middle ... thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/30/1267341/...

1 day ago ... House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said Friday that the House ... The Democrats plan to use a discharge petition, which can force a bill to the ... Refuses To Give Specifics About The Entitlement Cuts He's Demanding ...
titonton divaunte pants

United States

#14638 Dec 1, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets see...lets try to oversimplify an argument so that the real issues (a national economy that was spiraling towards depression if Congress sat on its hands) are swept under the rug.
woof
who cares if republicans don't put anything onthe table? As long as they don't obstruct. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s-now-b...
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#14639 Dec 1, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
We'll see. It's only a matter of time.
If a parent is not providing lunch for their children, then what else are they not providing for them when out of school? I mean, to me, that's a clear indication of abuse and the children should be taken away from such parents-not give them free lunch as if it solves anything. I know our government gives way more food stamps than a family can eat. Come on. Make your kids lunch with those food stamp goodies.
I'm sure you disagree with my statement because deep down inside, you know this lunch thing is nothing more than a government indoctrination project, training kids to be dependent on government from young on; a cradle to grave introduction program.
Spare me the Rush Limbaugh indoctrination boogeyman stories.

When kids are taken from their parents, who do you think is paying for that?
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#14640 Dec 1, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
They aren't. It's called a paid service. You know, like when you get your car fixed. You pay the shop X amount of money and they agree to provide X amount of services. This is no different. Government doesn't do anything better than the private market.
The State of Ohio would save a whole lot of money doing that advertising itself rather than paying Kasich's buddies to do it. All JobsOhio is is an opportunity for somebody to take taxpayer money. You should be outraged.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#14641 Dec 1, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
The State of Ohio would save a whole lot of money doing that advertising itself rather than paying Kasich's buddies to do it. All JobsOhio is is an opportunity for somebody to take taxpayer money. You should be outraged.
Liberals are focused on good intentions. Conservatives are focused on good results. That's where our philosophy differs.

If a private/government enterprise is producing results, then we should pay them for their work. It's called investment. When you get something more than what you put it, it's a good investment. When you get less than what you put in, it's a failure. You know, kind of like the Pork Bill that produced little work except for unions and environmentalist satisfactions. Like green energy programs that failed. You got less than what your borrowed tax dollars put in. Failure.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#14642 Dec 1, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Spare me the Rush Limbaugh indoctrination boogeyman stories.
When kids are taken from their parents, who do you think is paying for that?
We are. But we are paying for them anyway. Why encourage them to have more children than they can afford? They do it deliberately to get more food stamps, larger HUD home-perhaps in the suburbs, a larger welfare check.

Perhaps if we had a system where government removes the children instead of pandering to the parents, we could actually end poverty. There would be no financial advantage for them.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#14643 Dec 1, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
We are. But we are paying for them anyway. Why encourage them to have more children than they can afford? They do it deliberately to get more food stamps, larger HUD home-perhaps in the suburbs, a larger welfare check.
Perhaps if we had a system where government removes the children instead of pandering to the parents, we could actually end poverty. There would be no financial advantage for them.
Financial advantage? Those perks must be amazing. You are pitiful Ray.

Food Stamp Recipients Wish Critics Would Spend Some ... www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/food-stamps...

Jan 19, 2012 ... Hey remember when food stamp recipients crashed the Stock .... I would much rather be working, but I can't stay out of bed long ... There is no reason in the world a poor child should not be able to .... And yet when you see what the average person with food stamps is buying most peoples sympathy is gone.

Hannity Omits The "Food Stamp" Facts: Most Recipients Have ... mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/18/hannity-... ...

Sep 18, 2012 ... But most recipients of food stamps, or Supplemental Nutrition ... Were "Children Under Age 18," "Age 60 Or Older," Or "Working Poor.
FactCheck.org : Newt's Faulty Food-Stamp Claim www.factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-s...

Jan 18, 2012 ... The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most ... And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients ... The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October.... 41 percent lived in a household with earnings from a job — the so-called “working poor.

Nearing retirement - and surviving on food stamps - CBS News www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57384915/neari... ...

Feb 24, 2012 ... Manton is one of a record 46 million Americans now on food stamps, an increase of ... of Agriculture, 41 percent of food stamp recipients live in households where someone does earn a paycheck -- the so-called "working poor.

Food Stamps — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities www.cbpp.org/research/index.cfm... - Similarto Food Stamps — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

House Agriculture Committee Proposal Would Cut 2 Million Off Food Stamps,.... require the most severe cuts in programs for the poor in the nation's history..... 10 million food stamp recipients — including many low-income working families,...
Duke for Mayor

Massillon, OH

#14644 Dec 1, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
They aren't. It's called a paid service. You know, like when you get your car fixed. You pay the shop X amount of money and they agree to provide X amount of services. This is no different. Government doesn't do anything better than the private market.
Hope you never need the fire department.

Oh, that's right...your neighbors will help u out.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Massillon, OH

#14645 Dec 1, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Spare me the Rush Limbaugh indoctrination boogeyman stories.
When kids are taken from their parents, who do you think is paying for that?
The custody fairies???

woof

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#14646 Dec 1, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
The custody fairies???
woof
Apparently xxrated pays for all that.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#14648 Dec 1, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's your opinion I suppose, but I can't name one reason that anyone would possibly rationally use to say that Carter should be in prison.
I've always liked the Peanut man. History will eventually look kindly upon him.
GWB on the other hand...
woof
Although opinions & evaluations may change with time, the 'peanut man' has NOT been president for over 3 decades. How much time needs to go by B4 there is a 'kindly' evaluation?
But I agree, there is NO reason to incarcerate Carter. Anyone that thinks so not very bright
Duke for Mayor

Massillon, OH

#14649 Dec 2, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Truck Accident Statistics
Over the past two decades, the number of truck accidents has increased by 20%. According to the Federal Motor carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), in 2002, 4,897 individuals died and 130,000 people were injured in crashes that involved a large truck. And even though large trucks are only responsible for 3% of injury-causing motor vehicle accidents, trucking accidents typically cause much greater harm than ordinary traffic accidents due to the large size and heavy weight of most trucks.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/trucki...
Society depends on trucks to deliver their goods. What society doesn't need are lawyers. Get rid of them all.
That's not what Shakespeare said.

woof

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Martins Ferry Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
the music thread (Mar '12) Dec 15 Musikologist 18
Nud Dec 3 Homeless Wino Pete 3
Tiltonsville Girl Takes Stand in Rape Case (Aug '07) Oct '14 paddyomalley 3
Midget League Football Jul '14 New Neighbor 1
Martins Ferry Police looking for stabbing suspect (May '14) May '14 Donald Muhammad 1
Debate: Gay Marriage - Martins Ferry, OH (Jul '10) Apr '14 Nope 12
Obese man who was cut out of home dies | The Co... (Apr '11) Feb '14 Magnum Opus 40
Martins Ferry Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Martins Ferry People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Martins Ferry News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Martins Ferry

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 2:24 pm PST

NBC Sports 2:24PM
Manziel's Bama advice for OSU? 'Respect them, don't fear them'
NBC Sports 2:42 PM
Browns WR Phil Bates won't play Sunday
Bleacher Report 2:51 PM
Gordon Ban Gives Browns Flexibility
NBC Sports 2:57 PM
Gordon may appeal suspension
NFL 5:06 PM
Johnny Manziel fined for being late to treatment