Trausti
Illuminator
We'll, it's just taxpayer money. Okay to set it on fire.Are you disputing that he uncovered fraud? Or does it just not count because raysism?
We'll, it's just taxpayer money. Okay to set it on fire.Are you disputing that he uncovered fraud? Or does it just not count because raysism?
You didn't address my question. Were these people with a legitimate need? Or people you think shouldn't be served?Are you disputing that he uncovered fraud? Or does it just not count because raysism?
I wouldn't describe helping people that have a need as lighting money on fire.We'll, it's just taxpayer money. Okay to set it on fire.
Indeed I did not, because I think you are using it to avoid what I consider to be the relevant issue.You didn't address my question.
The individuals committing fraud had no legitimate need. And they did not meet anyone's legitimate need.Were these people with a legitimate need?
Fraud is only helping those who commit fraud. Why are you defending that? Why such animus against taxpayers?I wouldn't describe helping people that have a need is lighting money on fire.
While we are drifting off topic, has the DOJ since filed charges for fraud in Minnesota? Shirley surely (heh heh) brought attention to it.after watching his interview i don’t think nick shirley uncovered fraud. i agree that he made a video that went viral
Yes, they have.While we are drifting off topic, has the DOJ since filed charges for fraud in Minnesota? Shirley surely (heh heh) brought attention to it.
Pocketing money without providing a service (ie, fraud) is not helping people that have a need.I wouldn't describe helping people that have a need as lighting money on fire.
Where are the people in need? Why aren't the parents and their children out in front of the cameras, telling the world about how the daycare they relied on got shut down by racist MAGA?I wouldn't describe helping people that have a need as lighting money on fire.
Immigrants DIDN'T get help. What part of the word "fraud" are you not understanding?if an immigrant needed help and got it he's John Dillinger?
Now you're concerned about efficiency gains? Tell us about the efficiency gains of throwing more money at a broken system, instead of trying to distract us from that issue.I want to know where the efficiency gains are?
The Trump administration has been awarding out countless no bid contracts out to his friends as if they were kids on Halloween.
And what exactly did Shirley uncover?
Why is it you conservatives turn a blind eye to the massive corruption in this administration, but if an immigrant needed help and got it he's John Dillinger?
Well, no. That's not what happened. I said "cut entitlements", and in fairness, that was ambiguous. Your response was to claim I was in favor of cutting entitlement programs. I responded with the clarification that we have to cut entitlement spending, which isn't the same thing as entitlement programs (cutting programs is not the only way to cut spending). It's also not identical to entitlement benefits, though we will probably have to cut some of those as well. But cutting out fraud absolutely cuts spending.Zig said he wanted to cut entitlements. When I called him out that cutting entitlements meant denying services to those in need he backtracked suggesting we could cut waste. But that's not what conservatives do. They cut benefits.
Yeah, he probably had no source at all, just made it all up.That explanation is literally impossible.
That (mostly) makes sense. Thanks.I actually posted that video for the observation that politicians, like Obama, used the "tax the rich" mantra for votes, regardless of the consequences. While I generally agree that tax increases can lead to reduced tax collection (see California), there are likely other factors, like crime, for Detroit's decline.
I'm not sure why you're struggling to just admit that you were wrong without blaming Sowell.Yeah, he probably had no source at all, just made it all up.