21 children by 11 different women... and he's only 29

[Dr. Obvious 49]

Kids are like puppies or kittens to him. He has the fun part, the sex, and doesn't take care of them.

The same has to be said for the mothers. Someone is enabling them as well and it is not just the state of Tennessee. Otherwise they would have stopped a long time ago.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, do you know what percentage of you Fed income tax goes to welfare? Because if you do, you can then estimate how much you are paying for welfare based on your annually salary. Now, if you were to donate the same amount to your favorite charity, your taxable income would be less. You can complain all you want about taxes going towards things you don't agree with, but that's just part of living in this country...or any country for that matter.

Sorry, your math doesn't work but it is probably because you never did income taxes.

Let's say I know that exactly $10,000 of my taxes goes to welfare. So "instead" I DONATE another $10,000 of my income to local charities. Only I CAN'T do this "instead" as the government does not give me this choice and confiscates the money from pay before I can receive it and makes decisions about how to use it. This way they can give it to stupid sluts who open their legs and make babies with anyone. Most normal people would abject to this and not voluntarily donote to such nonsense. So, anyway, I follow your stellar tax advise and donate the money to the local disaster relief fund and they are very happy and give me a "thank you dinner"

Come the next February, I DEDUCT the $10,000 from my income. WOW a great idea you had. I am in the 35% tax bracket and will get $3500 of my $10,000 "back" (thank you very much oh wise and benevolent government, oh and never mind, keep the interest on the loan) and STILL paid $10,000 to welfare. So now I am out $20,000 and got back $3,500. Yikes. Get a clue.

See, the problem is, donations are deductions from INCOME, not from TAXES. So you only "save" the amount of tax you would have paid on that amount of income. Paying $10,000 for the purpose of recieiving a one time return of $3,500 would make me more stupid than the sluts making babies with this prize winning sperm shooter.

On the other hand, if you left me the $10,000 in MY income and then taxed my spending, instead of my income, giving me some disgression on how to spend some money. Especially if donations were not a taxed form of "spending"

Gary, you're not paying $10,000 in tax towards welfare. In fact, I doubt if many do. Even if your total federal income tax after deductions was $10,000, 11.79% goes to unemployment and welfare...or $1,179. If you gave that much to charities, your taxable income would be lower and you'd be paying less fed tax. It's not a dollar for dollar exchange, but you can lower your tax by giving to charities. In fact, it is advisable if your taxable income is in a higher tax bracket.

(unemployment and welfare is the purple slice - 11.79%)

[mRx 16]

The amount of taxation collected is irrelevant. It has been shown empirically that individuals will economize their wages better than any government will. Incentive matters.

Tahoma, if you want to help the children, then I applaud your generosity. But, no individual should be forced to bear the cost of another individual's action by forcible taxation.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The amount of taxation collected is irrelevant. It has been shown empirically that individuals will economize their wages better than any government will. Incentive matters.

Tahoma, if you want to help the children, then I applaud your generosity. But, no individual should be forced to bear the cost of another individual's action by forcible taxation.

The idea that taxation is forced upon but wages are contractual is a fallacy, Matt. An individual is free to enter or leave this country, just like a job. By choosing to live here, you entering into a contract with the government.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary, do you know what percentage of you Fed income tax goes to welfare? Because if you do, you can then estimate how much you are paying for welfare based on your annually salary. Now, if you were to donate the same amount to your favorite charity, your taxable income would be less. You can complain all you want about taxes going towards things you don't agree with, but that's just part of living in this country...or any country for that matter.

Sorry, your math doesn't work but it is probably because you never did income taxes.

Let's say I know that exactly $10,000 of my taxes goes to welfare. So "instead" I DONATE another $10,000 of my income to local charities. Only I CAN'T do this "instead" as the government does not give me this choice and confiscates the money from pay before I can receive it and makes decisions about how to use it. This way they can give it to stupid sluts who open their legs and make babies with anyone. Most normal people would abject to this and not voluntarily donote to such nonsense. So, anyway, I follow your stellar tax advise and donate the money to the local disaster relief fund and they are very happy and give me a "thank you dinner"

Come the next February, I DEDUCT the $10,000 from my income. WOW a great idea you had. I am in the 35% tax bracket and will get $3500 of my $10,000 "back" (thank you very much oh wise and benevolent government, oh and never mind, keep the interest on the loan) and STILL paid $10,000 to welfare. So now I am out $20,000 and got back $3,500. Yikes. Get a clue.

See, the problem is, donations are deductions from INCOME, not from TAXES. So you only "save" the amount of tax you would have paid on that amount of income. Paying $10,000 for the purpose of recieiving a one time return of $3,500 would make me more stupid than the sluts making babies with this prize winning sperm shooter.

On the other hand, if you left me the $10,000 in MY income and then taxed my spending, instead of my income, giving me some disgression on how to spend some money. Especially if donations were not a taxed form of "spending"

Gary, you're not paying $10,000 in tax towards welfare. In fact, I doubt if many do. Even if your total federal income tax after deductions was $10,000, 11.79% goes to unemployment and welfare...or $1,179. If you gave that much to charities, your taxable income would be lower and you'd be paying less fed tax. It's not a dollar for dollar exchange, but you can lower your tax by giving to charities. In fact, it is advisable if your taxable income is in a higher tax bracket.

(unemployment and welfare is the purple slice - 11.79%)

You truly will be a good President, Colonel. OK, lets say $100 of my taxes go to welfare instead of the children I wanted it to go to. So now I get $35 back if I contribute $100 to a charity. Choose any numbers you like. I do not have the choice of where it goes and when it gets confiscated and I cannot get it back by contributing to a charity

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The amount of taxation collected is irrelevant. It has been shown empirically that individuals will economize their wages better than any government will. Incentive matters.

Tahoma, if you want to help the children, then I applaud your generosity. But, no individual should be forced to bear the cost of another individual's action by forcible taxation.

The idea that taxation is forced upon but wages are contractual is a fallacy, Matt. An individual is free to enter or leave this country, just like a job. By choosing to live here, you entering into a contract with the government.

Indiviuals are not free to enter this country, you ought to know that. And why must we "take it or leave it" I opt to change it. Return it to what it should be. Individual responsibility and indiviual liberty. I have full faith in my fellow man to be successful in life.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You truly will be a good President, Colonel. OK, lets say $100 of my taxes go to welfare instead of the children I wanted it to go to. So now I get $35 back if I contribute $100 to a charity. Choose any numbers you like. I do not have the choice of where it goes and when it gets confiscated and I cannot get it back by contributing to a charity

Yes. Just like you don't have a direct choice on what types of planes the Pentagon buys. All part of living in a Republic. We do have choices even they aren't the choices you prefer.

[alienlovechild 75]

Gary, you're not paying $10,000 in tax towards welfare.

It's not that high but you're excluding all the other costs that come with supporting out-of-wedlock births to the poor. Medical costs, free housing, food stamps, education, greater crime leading to higher social costs and the legal system. It goes far beyond mere welfare payments.

[Niels Bohr 72]

ALC, some stuff the Republican say does make sense with these costs used to fund the poor.

Hmm...Those poor people do need to get their life straight.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[alienlovechild 75]

ALC, some stuff the Republican say does make sense with these costs used to fund the poor.

I forgot to add that poverty tends to run intergenerationally so all the costs go into future generations as well. Studies have shown that the biggest indicator of poverty isn't level of education but whether the parents are married.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You truly will be a good President, Colonel. OK, lets say $100 of my taxes go to welfare instead of the children I wanted it to go to. So now I get $35 back if I contribute $100 to a charity. Choose any numbers you like. I do not have the choice of where it goes and when it gets confiscated and I cannot get it back by contributing to a charity

Yes. Just like you don't have a direct choice on what types of planes the Pentagon buys. All part of living in a Republic. We do have choices even they aren't the choices you prefer.

Right. I do not purport to be the expert on the choice of planes. The common defense IS a constitutionally mandated responsibility of the government, supporting out of wedlock babies is not. I fully support the government doing what WE mandate it do and do not complain about that. They were doing it long before an income tax was instituted.

welfare and other entitlement programs are a government mandate on us to provide the government with an underclass of people dependent on the government. That was not the intent of the constitution.

[scandal 951]

Indiviuals are not free to enter this country, you ought to know that. And why must we "take it or leave it" I opt to change it. Return it to what it should be. Individual responsibility and indiviual liberty. I have full faith in my fellow man to be successful in life.

Gary, your extreme form of libertarian "Individual responsibility and individual liberty" is only one half of "what it should be".

The entire premise of our Constitution and form of government is that there is an inherent balance to be sought between individual and collective freedoms, and individual and collective responsibilities. It is NOT all about the individual. The framers understood that it is necessary to protect the commons and the "general welfare" of the state while at the same time not abrogating individual liberties. The right of governments to tax is often where that rubber hits the road. There are many aspects of public policy that you or I may disagree with. For example, avowed pacifists are opposed in principle to any military expenditures, a far larger part of their tax burden than welfare payments are. And yet, pacifists pay for the Pentagon's budget just as you pay for welfare.

You are free to disagree with public welfare. Oppose it! Vote against it. Run for office. But the collective public through democratic means has voted to have such a public policy and to pay for it from general tax revenues.

Regarding Steve's earlier claim that those who don't like it here should just leave the country, well of course that's silly. Steve -- think about it for a moment, you know better than that!

[yogib37 3]

That Asian anchor is HOT! But, back to the comment. Those women are sluts.

Oh you notice that also

yes she is....

on a second note, they should give him a philippine hair cut..

he should of stop maybe 20 kids ago.

[mRx 16]

Indiviuals are not free to enter this country, you ought to know that. And why must we "take it or leave it" I opt to change it. Return it to what it should be. Individual responsibility and indiviual liberty. I have full faith in my fellow man to be successful in life.

It is NOT all about the individual.

There is no such thing as collective freedoms, or collective responsibilities.

These are abstractions that are intangible. Only individuals have responsibilities as only individuals are capable of action.

That is why there is such a divide in politics; intangible nonexistent metaphors cannot be quantified.