possibly something all of us can agree would be an overdue action

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#1
THE POWER TO DESTROY
Read GOP lips:
No more IRS
Hastert hints of Bush's secret plan to end income tax in his 2nd term

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 2, 2004
9:30 p.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Is it real or is it an election year scheme to win votes?

That's the question many in this town are asking about House Speaker Dennis Hastert's proposal to eliminate the income tax and abolish the Internal Revenue Service in a second Bush administration.




In his upcoming book, "Speaker: Lessons from Forty Years in Coaching and Politics," Hastert says the bold move – sure to be immensely popular with voters – will be the centerpiece of President Bush's domestic agenda in a second term.

Hastert, for his part, says he will push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax.

"People ask me if I'm really calling for the elimination of the IRS, and I say I think that's a great thing to do for future generations of Americans," he writes in "Speaker," set for release tomorrow.


House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, offered a preview of the House GOP leadership's post-election tax agenda in a March speech in which he said the Republicans are determined to repeal the federal income tax.

Long an advocate of a national sales tax, a confident DeLay told a conference of tax lobbyists that House Republicans will have hearings and push the issue in 2005 and 2006.

He said that replacing the income tax, payroll and other related federal taxes would provide more money for people to use, and he endorsed a proposal from Rep. John Linder, R-Ga., for a national sales tax.

Yet, even as Republican leaders in the GOP-led House, Senate and Bush White House have praised the concept of tax simplification over the last 3 1/2 years, the U.S. tax code has been expanded by over 10,000 pages as the Bush tax cuts and other changes – part of a total of 227 changes to the code – were implemented.

"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult," admits Hastert. "Change of any sort seldom comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic vitality and our economic security abroad."

Americans for Fair Taxation has been pushing the plan for years. Recently, the group has been pushing H.R. 25 as the vehicle.

"The current federal income tax system is broken. Patching up the existing code is pointless. It's time for a fresh approach, a fair approach. It's time for the FairTax," says the group's website. "From its humble beginnings, the income tax has grown like a cancer by taxing our hard work and discouraging savings and investment."

H.R. 25 would eliminate the federal income tax and replace it with a 23 percent consumption tax paid by the end user. That means business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services would not be taxed. The organization estimates consumer prices will drop by an estimated 20-30 percent as a result of the change.

The group's website describes how the bill's rebate function works. It assures that those living in poverty would not pay any tax.

"Under the FairTax, no American will pay taxes on necessities. The rebate will be equivalent to the tax paid on essential goods and services. The rebate will be mailed before the tax is actually paid [and] will be paid in equal installments at the beginning of the month. The size of the monthly rebate will be determined by the federal poverty level for a particular household size."

The bill's Senate version is S.1493, sponsored by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., was introduced last year.

"If you own property, stock, or, say, one hundred acres of farmland and tax time is approaching, you don't want to make a mistake, so you're almost obliged to go to a certified public accountant, tax preparer, or tax attorney to help you file a correct return. That costs a lot of money," writes Hastert. "Now multiply the amount you have to pay by the total number of people who are in the same boat. You can't. No one can because precise numbers don't exist. But we can stipulate that we're talking about a huge amount. Now consider that a flat tax, national sales tax, or VAT would not only eliminate the need to do this, it could also eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) itself and make the process of paying taxes much easier."

Would a campaign promise to eliminate the IRS be taken seriously? If the Bush administration were really planning such a dramatic move in a second term, why would campaign officials not be making more of it? Could Bush really deliver on a promise so bold?

These were some of the questions being asked around the Capitol today. Nevertheless, the leak from Hastert is sure to sell books.

"By adopting a VAT, sales tax, or some other alternative, we could begin to change productivity," Hastert continued. "If you can do that, you can change gross national product and start growing the economy. You could double the economy over the next fifteen years. All of a sudden, the problem of what future generations owe in Social Security and Medicare won't be so daunting anymore. The answer is to grow the economy, and the key to doing that is making sure we have a tax system that attracts capital and builds incentives to keep it here instead of forcing it out to other nations."
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#4
phil said:
That means business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services would not be taxed. The organization estimates consumer prices will drop by an estimated 20-30 percent as a result of the change.
Flashbacks: Group predicts California power deregulation will drop power prices by 50 percent. Bi-partisan move spearheaded by lobbying money and energy industry backing.

Result: Blackouts in California, huge surge in power prices. Statewide bloating and bankruptcy led by Gray Davis, leading to his recall. Enron collapse over exploitation of the system.

Flashbacks: Insurance deregulation plan touted to drop prices of insurance premiums in 1996. Republican congress and Insurance industries push forward plan.

Result: Deregulated insurance premiums drop to ridiculous lows in price wars. 7 of 12 major insurance companies participating go bankrupt. Insurance premiums, especially Workman's Comp, jump astronomically, increasing anywhere from 50 to 350 percent in period from 1997-2002.

I'm not saying this is a completely bad plan, but I'd like to hear some of the "con" arguments. If the Republicans are involved it obviously has some major incentive for the rich and big business. Obviously, the elimination of business taxation would provide more capital and access to overhead for businesses...I'm wondering how many other pork barrel provisions are in the plan.

A few issues come up, such as 1. how much government revenue will be lost through the elimination of income tax, and 2. will the increase in goods taxation really result in a "price drop" of 20-30%?

It does hint of supply-side Reaganomics...like most Republican fiscal plans, but I remain hopeful and optimistic about this one...We'll have to see how it comes out.
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#5
I saw the Speaker talking about this and he didn't really have any solid plan to do it. For instance, he said the actual proposed national tax is unknown at this time because the elimination of income tax would affect everyone differently so they just pulled a number out of a hat and called it 17% across the board.

Smells like election year propaganda to me.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#6
did you even read the article tok? sounds like a plan to me. of course its not gonna be some overnight thing (if it were to even happen...pffft). some things would need to be worked out. but never fear, your lefty comrades would NEVER ALLOW this to happen. i doubt it ever will. who actually sees the govt (left or right) giving up that much control and scrutiny of our incomes. ted kennedy would have a fit. the nice part is that if you live under the poverty level you get a tax rebate check every month to cover taxes paid on your VITAL needs.
therefore you pay none of the tax at all. how can it get any more fair? this will also be an incentive for people to save a little more and be a little more wary about what theyre spending.
this shouldnt be looked at on a partisan level. this is for all of us. i doubt the prices would drop 20 to 30 percent but there is a much larger market for entrepreneurialship for everyday goods and services rather than health insurance. AND CALIFORNIAS CRISIS IS A CASE OF APPLES AND ORANGES. THATS A CASE OF COMPLETE MISMANAGEMENT AND FRAUD.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#7
Hardly. California deregulation was touted as a way to cut government control and bureaucracy. Businesses would be "set free to run with less taxation and interference, resulting in price drops for everyone".

What did you yourself say, phil? "who actually sees the govt (left or right) giving up that much control and scrutiny of our incomes." This was the exact same thing said by 1. Energy companies in California, and 2. insurance companies pushing for deregulation. There is no case of "apples and oranges" here. The same case of "stop government interference" is made, with the "businesses" being the real benefactors.

Businesses and Republicans pushing to "get the government out of our lives" often make the rallying cry with the real intent of "Let me charge as much as I want". I myself am hopeful for this to come to fruition. I'm not looking at this on a "partisan" level...if this bill does exactly what they say it will, it would be great.

But, who would really benefit? Will businesses be forced to lower their prices 20 to 30 percent? Business might actually LOSE money in this case. Look at the cases of large American corporations who get the government to pay them after playing the tax code like a fiddle.

This is so similar to the power and insurance crisis taglines, it's downright strange. "Get the government out of our lives", aka "Let large corporations make more money!".

Some questions I have:
1. Will removal of income taxation by businesses offset, percentage-wide, the cuts they incur due to such taxation?
2. Will there be any mandates to dictate goods/services pricing after this?
3. Will the increased tax on goods and services match or be less than what someone would pay overall?
 
Jul 21, 2004
465
0
0
#8
Let dissect this article first.

The fluff of words in this article is infuriating. There is no complete detail of this new tax promise. I would hope that anyone reading this is asking who_what_when_where_how_ pros & cons (20ea). There are no numbers of current income, tax breaks for poor, middle, rich class origin of issues (give me 5_issues at least).

Current poverty line: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh03.html

The average income currently for a family of 4 near the poverty line is +$40,000.00 before tax. Without the tax it would still keep families starving, going to prison, and keeping them in the poverty line. Can you live with 40K? Let’s add now, with kids, gas in your car, new clothes, need to pay for phone/gas/electric too, maybe one night a week to have a nice dinner. Huh?!?, seems to be adding up….school, a computer to help out, oh yes I forgot about rent too.

Land of opportunity? I think NOT!

Now let’s take 1middle class ($80K/yr_4person) and 1rich class ($200k/yr_4person); if the flat tax (everyone gets it) let’s go _____10%tax – ($80k=$72K) and ($200K=180k). Most rich families have more land, interest in other companies, and larger property (cars, ranches, more companies) with this flat tax they would not have to pay on the yearly cost of storages, property tax, insurance needed to own these items. Again, owners of large lands, one company is McDonalds, will not need to pay property tax? This is +$100,000,000,000.00 (100ths of billions of $$$$) which currently help to keep schools and health care running. So this means more cash is in their pockets to increase their billions while we still struggle to invest wisely on what we can balance out after paying for just our necessities.

There is a near 37% missing report of income, property, and investments from the 15% large US corporations (worth +1$billion revenue) and 21% richest individuals (worth +$1.5million income) of this country, which would provide a much needed support in investments of improving the overall progress of US lower and middle class families.

The balance of being rich is that you must pay for what you have. If you have companies, personnel assistance, or own luxurious cars, homes, boats, priceless antiques paying tax for them is assurance you’re not impacting communities, your land is not going to eliminating natural resources and environments, and your insuring your interest in large investments we po folks can only dream to have.

To the rich:

Stop finding loopholes to not pay for what you could easily afford. How much more criminal is it when billionaires still think they don’t have enough they have to steal from the poor and the middle class. That’s pretty twisted.
 
Jan 9, 2004
3,340
131
0
42
#9
phil said:
did you even read the article tok? sounds like a plan to me. of course its not gonna be some overnight thing (if it were to even happen...pffft). some things would need to be worked out. but never fear, your lefty comrades would NEVER ALLOW this to happen. i doubt it ever will. who actually sees the govt (left or right) giving up that much control and scrutiny of our incomes. ted kennedy would have a fit. the nice part is that if you live under the poverty level you get a tax rebate check every month to cover taxes paid on your VITAL needs.
therefore you pay none of the tax at all. how can it get any more fair? this will also be an incentive for people to save a little more and be a little more wary about what theyre spending.
this shouldnt be looked at on a partisan level. this is for all of us. i doubt the prices would drop 20 to 30 percent but there is a much larger market for entrepreneurialship for everyday goods and services rather than health insurance. AND CALIFORNIAS CRISIS IS A CASE OF APPLES AND ORANGES. THATS A CASE OF COMPLETE MISMANAGEMENT AND FRAUD.
Yes Phil, I did. WD and Merci summed up my trepidations.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#10
HOLD ON MERCEDES YOUR POST IS FULL OF NOT ONLY INACCURACIES AND OUTRIGHT LIES, BUT AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF IGNORANCE.

first off this is elimination of income tax and the irs. property taxes are paid through state and local governments. ok??? are you following??? ill try to take it easy on the FACTS as i know theyre easy for your type to skim over for the more glittery doomsday scenarios.

now. lets get your lies straight. if all these corporations and rich folks have all these loopholes and already pay no taxes (as you suggest) then what difference is this gonna make. and if it is gonna make a difference it isnt much right? the rich dont pay taxes. these are your statements. let me know when the facts get to blowing by you too fast. so if theyre not paying anything now, and dont pay anything later, then whats the difference? or have you been downplaying their contribution the whole time? YOU CANT PLAY BOTH SIDES AND STILL BE CREDIBLE.

now you said that a family of 4 at 40000 annually is at the census bureaus poverty line right? ok. this means those folks DONT PAY THE TAX!!! DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE? THERE WILL BE A CHECK HANDED TO ALL "IMPOVERISHED" AMERICANS EVERY MONTH TO COVER THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE NECESSITIES. A NIGHT OUT FOR DINNER A WEEK IS NOT A NECESSITY. A PHONE IS NOT A NECESSITY. CIGARETTES, BEER, POLO JEANS, NIKE SHOES ARE WANTS NOT NEEDS. IT IS NOT EVERY AMERICAN'S ENTITLEMENT TO THESE THINGS (AS YOUR LEFTIST PARTNERS CONVINCE YOU THAT YOU ARE)

THE MORE YOU MAKE UNDER THIS PROGRAM THE MORE RESPONSIBLE YOU ARE TO PAY THE 23%

SO YOUR FAMILY OF 4 AT 40000 A YEAR IS BEING CARRIED BY WHO? IT CANT BE THE RICH!!! THEY DONT PAY TAXES REMEMBER?? SO WHEN THEY BUY THEIR NEW MERCEDES (NO PUN INTENDED) AND DROP BASICALLY A 23000 LUXURY TAX TO GET IT, THATS NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU?? OH I SEE. YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS MORE EFFICIENT WITH YOUR MONEY. OKEE DOKEE
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#11
HERE I FOUND THIS ON NEAL BOORTZ'S SITE

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR*?

OK ... let's put on our sensitivity hats for a few minutes here and think of the consequences of the Fair Tax Act on our nation's poor, poor, pitiful poor. After all, they can hardly afford a 23% sales tax when they're living paycheck-to-paycheck in the first place, right? We're actually going to forget, just for now, that poverty is largely a behavioral disorder and consider how they would survive under the fair tax.

We begin with a reality check. Right now, for the most part, those whom we define as "poor" aren't paying any income tax anyway. In fact, many of them are getting checks from the government. The absurdly named Earned Income Tax Credit, for example. So right now the government is actually supplementing their income. How can they endure a 23% sales tax?

The implementation of the Fair Tax would fail in short order if, as the question presupposes, the net effect on the poor would be the that they would be paying today's prices for a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread, plus a 23% sales tax. But ... that would be far from the reality under the Fair Tax. Under the Fair Tax the poor won't only survive, they'll positively thrive! The Fair Tax could turn out to be the best poverty-fighting tool devised in this country since the concept of hard work.

Let's begin by considering two realities.

First, remember, please, that the poor, along with everybody else, will no longer have Social Security taxes or Medicare taxes withheld from their paychecks. Whatever they earn, they get on payday. For most of them this means an immediate 10 to 15% increase in their earnings.

Second. Don't forget the 22% in imbedded taxes. It's lurking there in virtually everything poor Americans have to buy. As soon as the competitive forces of the free market work their magic these people will be paying 20% or more less for virtually retail purchase, including the basics of food, clothing, shelter and transportation. Yes .. they'll have to pay the new national sales tax, but when you factor in the lower prices caused by the disappearance of the embedded taxes you'll see that the total price paid for consumer goods will remain very nearly the same.

So ... just considering these factors, the Fair Tax delivers a winning hand to people living in or near to what we call poverty. They get every penny they earn on payday, and when you factor in the Fair Tax and the lower prices, they're actually spending less of their money for a retail purchase than before.

Pull out the calculators. Say that a single mother with two children spends $45 a week on groceries. The removal of the 22% embedded tax would bring the price of those groceries down to $35.10. The sales tax would be $8.07. This brings the total price to $43.17. That's less than would have paid under today's tax system. This single mother, whom we'll consider "poor," has just received a 10% to 15% increase in her weekly paychecks, and she's paying less at the grocery story for her basic necessities.

Well, at this point you should be thoroughly convinced that the Fair Tax would actually benefit, rather than harm the poor. But, then again, maybe not. So, here's the clincher.

The Rebate

Under the Fair Tax plan every consumer will receive a check from the federal government every single month equal to the sales tax that person would be expected to pay on the purchase of the basic necessities of life for that month. The size of the monthly payment will be based on the government's published poverty levels for various sized households.

Here's an example of how the rebate payments would have worked in 2003.

Let's say you're a married couple with two children. The Fair Tax Act sets forth a formula for computing the poverty level, based on government figures, which negates any marriage penalty. Under the Fair Tax Act in 2003 you would have been granted an annual consumption allowance of $24,240. This is what the government would assume you would have to spend during that one year to buy the basic necessities of life for your family. The sales tax on this amount would equal $5,575. The government will rebate this amount to you in 12 equal monthly installments of $465. What about a single woman with one child? Her monthly rebate in 2003 would have been $232. The lowest payment would be to a single person with no dependents. That person would receive $172 per month.

Now ... bear in mind, this rebate isn't only paid to the poor. It is paid to everyone, rich and poor alike. The purpose here is to make sure that no American has to pay the Fair Tax sales tax on the basic necessities of life. Unlike the present income tax system, the Fair Tax treats each and every person in this country exactly the same. This, of course, presents somewhat of a problem to politicians who like to use the tax code to foment class distrust or outright warfare.

OK ... let's add it up for America's lower income citizens:

They get their entire paycheck.
Even with the sales tax, and considering the drop in prices, they'll be paying essentially the same for everything they buy.
They get a check from the federal government every month to rebate any sales taxes they had to pay.
Though their tax returns aren't that complex, let's also include the time these the poor (all of us, really) will save by not having to keep tax records or file tax returns.

So, my friends, if you're looking for some reason to oppose the Fair Tax plan, you're going to have to find a better excuse than its effect on the poor.

*Please note that I titled this chapter "But what about the poor?" and not "But what about the less-fortunate?" Look, I can't be expected to write this entire book without getting in a few digs at the language of political correctness, can I? To say that the poor are poor because of a lack of good fortune presupposes that those who aren't poor were just lucky. Sorry, but for the vast majority the benefits of an affluent lifestyle aren't a matter of luck, they're the result of attention to education, hard work and good decision making. Luck counts on the Las Vegas Strip, not Main Street.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#14
hey dickfuck, it is a law that all phones must have 911 service connected or not.

SO FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO NITPICK.
 
Jun 18, 2004
2,190
0
0
#16
phil said:
hey dickfuck, it is a law that all phones must have 911 service connected or not.

SO FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO NITPICK.
Do you remember what you wrote dumbmutherfuck? "A phone is not a necessity," the ability for each phone to call 911 was not in question...NITPICK YOUR ASS BITCH.
 
Jul 21, 2004
465
0
0
#17
1st I was not suggesting that they don’t pay taxes, but they are withholding a HEFTY sum of income from the American people. WHAT REASON WOULD THE RICH NEED TO DO THIS????

2nd property tax increase or decrease on the bases of income of the area. Let’s not forget how the value of Silicon Valley and all of the Bay Area changed due to the increase of income, which also increases sale prices (not just taxes). God you’re pathetic.

3rd please have a family with two kids with an income of $40K a year then get back to me. And don’t forget to add a college, retirement, and prescriptions fund (you might need those). Oh Yeah, after school programs, or daycare, and hope you don’t have any major surgeries or accidents or car damages not mention if anything happen to the place your renting from.

As for the poor: They are POOR! When somebody is POOR, it’s a lot more difficult to find any hope of improvement when people like you tend to discredit their lives. You know, not all poor people do drug or are alcoholic or lazy. YOU INSENSITIVE SELFISH ASSHOLE! And don’t’ give me that shit about “others has made it out”, because they are tenths of thousands who don’t for every 1.

Phil,

You’re a waste of a brain and a heart for any country. PEEEACE BITACH !
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#18
phil said:
OK ... let's put on our sensitivity hats for a few minutes here and think of the consequences of the Fair Tax Act on our nation's poor, poor, pitiful poor.

poverty is largely a behavioral disorder and consider how they would survive under the fair tax.

To say that the poor are poor because of a lack of good fortune presupposes that those who aren't poor were just lucky.
THERE ARE SYSTEMS EMBEDDED IN POVERTY THAT KEEP POOR PEOPLE POOR. THIS HALF-BRAINED, RACIST, BLIND, IDIOTIC FUCK HAS NO RIGHT TO PRINT SHIT LIKE THIS. WHAT A FUCKING TOOL! LMAO!

THE POOR ARE JUST LAZY, UNSCHOOLED PEOPLE WITH A BEHAVIORAL DISORDER! NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT HIS PARENTS PAID FOR THE COLLEGE OF HIS RICH WHITE ASS. GOD THESE FUCKING NO BRAINS GET DIGESTED READILY BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND MCLEAN, AND YOU WONDER WHY WE MAKE FUN OF YOU CONSTANTLY. JESUS H FUCK, OPEN YOUR EYES.

Thanks.
 
Jun 18, 2004
2,190
0
0
#19
WHITE DEVIL said:
THERE ARE SYSTEMS EMBEDDED IN POVERTY THAT KEEP POOR PEOPLE POOR. THIS HALF-BRAINED, RACIST, BLIND, IDIOTIC FUCK HAS NO RIGHT TO PRINT SHIT LIKE THIS. WHAT A FUCKING TOOL! LMAO!

THE POOR ARE JUST LAZY, UNSCHOOLED PEOPLE WITH A BEHAVIORAL DISORDER! NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT HIS PARENTS PAID FOR THE COLLEGE OF HIS RICH WHITE ASS. GOD THESE FUCKING NO BRAINS GET DIGESTED READILY BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND MCLEAN, AND YOU WONDER WHY WE MAKE FUN OF YOU CONSTANTLY. JESUS H FUCK, OPEN YOUR EYES.

Thanks.
*COSIGNS* Poverty is a "behavioral disorder?" You really are a piece of shit phil...I guess that would be the true def. of compassionate consevatism.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#20
1ST= YOU NEED TO REMOVE YOURSELF FROM DELUSIONWORLD WHEN YOU ASSUME BECAUSE A (B)MILLIONAIRE GETS MORE OF HIS TAXES REFUNDED THAT HE IS SOMEHOW TAKING MONEY FROM SOMEONE ELSE. HE MAY BE GIVING LESS, BUT THATS HIS/HER MONEY. NOT YOURS OR MINE. FUCKING MORON.

2ND=HERE YOU GO NOT MAKING SENSE AGAIN!!! SO WHATS THE PROBLEM WITH INCOMES RISING? BASICALLY ALL YOURE SAYING IS NOTHING. PROPERTY TAXES GO UP AS INCOMES DO? NOT SO!! PROPERTY TAXES GO UP BASED ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.... WHY DONT YOU GO GET A FREE HANDOUT FROM THE GOVT AND GET YOU AN EDUCATION. PLEASE AND DO US ALL A FAVOR.

3RD= MATTER OF FACT MERCEDES IM MARRIED WITH 2 KIDS AND OUR YEARLY INCOME IS ABOUT 40 TO 45000 SO BLOW THAT OUT YOUR ASS. I CONTRIBUTE 10 PERCENT OFF TOP (PRETAX) TO 401K(RETIREMENT), PAY ABOUT 350 A MONTH FOR HEALTH INSURANCE 300 FOR CHILD SUPPORT, A MORTGAGE PAYMENT. SO PLEASE YOURSELF. I GET BY FINE WHILE MY KIDS WIFE AND I HAPPEN TO DRESS NICE, EAT WELL, HAVE CABLE, A PHONE, EAT OUT NICE AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK,KEEP 2 CARS UP, AND NOT RELY ON THE GOVT FOR A GOD DAMN THING. I AM A HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT (THEY THREW ME OUT ACTUALLY) AN EX CONVICT, AND I STILL MANAGED TO ESCAPE THE HELL MY LIFE WAS WHEN MY OUTLOOK WAS LIKE YOURS, 206'S, AND VARIOUS OTHER CLASS WARLORDS HERE. I DIDNT GROW UP CLOSE TO BEING PRIVELEGED, PROBABLY WORSE THAN YOU. I NEVER SAID ALL POOR PEOPLE ARE LAZY. I HAVE NEVER EVEN IMPLIED THAT. BUT FOR THE MOST PART POVERTY IS A MENTAL ISSUE. MOST PEOPLE HAVE THE TOOLS BUT DONT PUT THEM TO USE OR ARE ANCHORED BY THE CONSTANT SELF PITY THAT YOU WANT FUNDED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. BUT DO YOU HEAR "SO CALLED" REPRESENTATIVES OF THE POOR PREACHING THIS TYPE OF SELF RESPONSIBILITY? NO. BILL COSBY HAS TO DO IT BECAUSE EVERY TIME A WHITE PERSON SAYS IT, THEY ARE CALLED A CARD CARRYING MEMBER OF THE KKK. HOW DARE YOU SAY I DISCREDIT A POOR PERSONS LIFE. I CAME FROM NOTHING YOU STUPID FUCK.

OTHERS HAVE MADE IT OUT. IM ONE OF THEM