User Profile: gaittec


Member Since: May 05, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [1] July 29, 2016 at 12:05pm

    “By your logic, a household living entirely on government benefits could claim they have no absolutely no income.”
    I understand your point; but, is that really the way we should look at income? Your argument is based on accounting principles and the individual’s cash flow. I’m not an accountant. I don’t have that much personality. My view is based on the source of the income and it’s effect on that individual, both personally and in society, as well as the effect on the financial health of the country as a whole. Do all the subsidies not add to the national debt? Do we not pay additional interest on that debt? I’m sure you have the knowledge to correct me if my questions are wrongly based? Perhaps the reporting should should always include both earned and unearned income. Would this not give a truer picture of the health of the nation?

  • [1] July 29, 2016 at 11:18am

    Cooper is a light weight. The real devil is Matt Damon ;)

  • [20] July 28, 2016 at 3:17pm

    James, This quote is most interesting to me. ‘”is “based solely on money income” and does “not include the value of noncash benefits,” such as “food stamps, health benefits, subsidized housing,”’

    I think it’s a pitiful statement that real income is being replaced by government subsidies and those subsidies should be included as legitimate income. To take it to the extreme, we should count the housing, food, and clothes received by black slaves in the 19th century America as income. There is no place on earth where being subsidized by the government should be considered progress. If you use this as a basis for stating that income has increased, you should put a giant asterisk next to your statement.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] July 22, 2016 at 10:54pm

    Yeah, we kinda do….You don’t get to abandon all those and still claim them.

  • [16] July 22, 2016 at 1:28pm

    Yeah, a real Oxymoron. Somebody needs to fact check the fact checker.

  • July 22, 2016 at 1:26pm

    So…your voting the Hillary ticket, four more progressive years is fine by you. “Good Faith” demands you make your vote count toward what’s best, not throw it away.

  • [27] July 22, 2016 at 1:03pm

    Laymen, a lot of us didn’t want to be “Trump Guys”. But, Hillary would be a total disaster. Not voting would be a vote for Hillary just like four years ago it was a vote for Obama. If there’s never a wall built, if there’s no job improvement, or any other big change, just stopping the progressive direction, reversing Obama’s executive orders, and putting a conservative on the Supreme Court would be better.

    Responses (4) +
  • [3] July 21, 2016 at 5:13pm

    I’m glad she didn’t have to shoot a gun. It would have given her PTSD for life.

  • [2] July 20, 2016 at 5:49pm

    Because he was hoping to see a chance for a contested convention.

  • July 20, 2016 at 5:47pm

    I’d have to hear it from a reliable source to even consider that it might be true. So far, The Times and an unnamed source in Kasich’s camp doesn’t meet that test. The story sounds made up on it’s face. More sour grapes likely.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] July 20, 2016 at 5:41pm

    Sarge–I think she was being sarcastic if you read Saran Wrap’s post above.

  • [6] July 11, 2016 at 4:41pm

    The reason he can be sued if he votes against it is that it is a state law. He would be voting to violate the law and could very well be sued.

  • [4] June 8, 2016 at 5:43pm

    Not the first time. See the dog wagging in anticipation, then watching him leave.

  • [13] June 2, 2016 at 2:51pm

    Murders are up overall in Australia

  • [4] May 31, 2016 at 5:36pm

    When scientist, actors, and other experts in their field, are cited in areas where they are not expert, it’s called “An appeal to a false authority”. Basically, in politics, Hawking’s opinion should carry no more weight than anyone else.

  • [4] May 27, 2016 at 5:51pm

    All those taxes and fees that you refer to have increased exponentially in Democratic controlled cities and states primarily. And you may wish to rewrite history; but, you will get called on it. Government revenue increased dramatically after the reduction in income taxes by both Kennedy and Reagan.
    “They merely invest in companies to meet that consumption / demand.”
    I guess you want them to invest in companies where no demand and no increase in job opportunities exist. A true liberal reaction. The result is not important , only the fact that you would like to control the money.

  • May 27, 2016 at 12:04pm

    “Start a family devalues any couple who doesn’t happen to have kids, for whatever reason.”

    And who would that be primarily?

  • [1] May 27, 2016 at 12:03pm

    So… what do we ask them? When are you two going to quit necking and get it on?

  • [5] May 24, 2016 at 9:55pm

    I See Dead People…voting.

    Responses (1) +
  • [13] May 19, 2016 at 6:32pm

    I really enjoyed that! My first Jiu-jitsu class, I got schooled by a 140 pound woman when I was 230.
    That was over 10 years ago and I’ve loved it ever since. Jocko is a great representative of jiu-jitsu and of the US Military.

    Responses (2) +
123 To page: Go