Supreme Court rules against Rick Scott
Forums › General Discussion › Supreme Court rules against Rick Scott-
༺☠Ꮹཞ༏ཀ☠༻ wrote:
Hey now, let's not judge an entire state based on 1 person. I was born in Texas & have lived here my entire life. None of what you said describes me.ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Yeah and welcome to bigoted rednecks hating you if you don't love George Bush and drinking PBR by the gallon. Welcome to living around people that will persecute you and shit all over you if your skin isn't paper white. Welcome to living in a shithole dead end town with nothing to offer besides a paycheck. Again. Quality of life. I won't fit in in Texas cause I don't hate gays and black people.To all 👆 people relocating to Texas, welcome to lower taxes, better schools and less government intrusion. Please make sure you stop at one of our friendly gun check points. If you don't have a gun, we will be glad to supply you with one :-)
-
Above was from us news and world report. This one.... http://www.alec.org/publications/report-card-on-american-education/ has Texas ranked 11th and Cali 30th. Still want to stand by your liberal backed claim of Texas as last?
-
Also, I know alluvion very well. I vouch for him getting the company info to call. 👍
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
We've read the Ryan Budget, we know what "overhaul" means. Seems to me all we need to do is increase penalties for fraud and put some investigators to work. I read that each competent investigator brings in about $200,000 in fraud settlements each year, they pay for themselves and then some It's clearly an enforcement problem, your story backs that up.ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
✂️We just aren't thick enough to throw out the baby with the bath water over three measly percent. Hell any real corporation (not yours, that's a scam) has more loss than that and they don't shut the doors due to it.★Λddi★ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
😺Better yet, drive down I-20 from midland
👹Thanks!
-
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0233.pdf
The census is liberal now? Too cute. I prefer that over corporate media that once again uses anecdotes to rank a whole state. Every state has great schools. Doesn't mean they outrank other states based on a couple of them.
Btw, Alec, is a right wing think tank that writes legislation for the Republican Party. You were saying about a source unbiased? Once again...😂😂😂.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Above was from us news and world report. This one.... http://www.alec.org/publications/report-card-on-american-education/ has Texas ranked 11th and Cali 30th. Still want to stand by your liberal backed claim of Texas as last?
Addi's link measures student outcomes. Your link is to a "report card" that measures 6 rather odd metrics like charter schools, participation in proprietary online education programs, and lack of home schooling regulation...to establish a "grade" for the education system itself. Strangely absent is any measure of student outcome. Which on is more important? How "conservative friendly" the state is for schools, or how the students are doing? Hmm, so hard to choose...
-
Fnord-You are probably close to correct on the 200k figure, except, good investigator will save the govt about 200k a year by preventing continued abuse, not so much bring in 200k in settlements. I worked as part of a benefits fraud task force for a couple years. It was much more common to prove fraud and have the benefits stopped than get any sort settlement for the govt. Criminal charges against individuals for fraud were almost unheard of. We did procecute some business owners, and employees of businesses where individuals would go and exchange their benefits, for pennies on the dollar of face value, for goods that are not authoruzed to be purchased with the benefit.
-
Overall, I don't think there is really a lot of fraud in the system. Sure, many of the people receiving assistance make choices I don't really understand, but to each his/her own.
I would like to see more criminal convictions for the fraud, but the prosecutors usually say something to the effect, "This case lacks jury appeal."
-
I certainly don't see how adding the additional administrative cost of conducting drug screening would save the govt money. I don't know the cost of a drug screening, but I imagine one that would support having someone lose their benefits would need to be accurate enough to be costly. Then the question begs, how often is the person receiving the benefit to be screened? Only when they first apply? Every time they receive the benefit? At random? I mean really, what the hell are people thinking?
-
Interesting.
-
✯ᎷᎪᎠᎠᎻᎪᎢᎢᎬᏒ✯ wrote:
Great, now the guy all wacked out on mercury is here. Is there a test for your intoxicant of choice? I suppose there must be.Interesting.
-
Mystery says:
Hey now, let's not judge an entire state based on 1 person. I was born in Texas & have lived here my entire life. None of what you said describes me.Thank you. I've lived in East Texas my entire life. Not once have I met a racist. Down here race isn't important at all. You're just a person. Of course there are racists in Texas, but there are also racists in every other state.
-
Mystery wrote:
Sorry to other decent texans. I told Ragnar a couple pages back that I was generalizing and shouldn't do that. My apologies.༺☠Ꮹཞ༏ཀ☠༻ wrote:
Hey now, let's not judge an entire state based on 1 person. I was born in Texas & have lived here my entire life. None of what you said describes me.ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Yeah and welcome to bigoted rednecks hating you if you don't love George Bush and drinking PBR by the gallon. WelcomeTo all 👆 people relocating to Texas, welcome to lower taxes, better schools and less government intrusion. Please make sure you stop at one of our friendly gun check points. If you don't have a gun, we will be glad to supply you with one :-)
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Yeah then he comes with the assumption that she must be making at least 10k a month. Does everyone make 10k a month in your world Mack? Do you think I'd even be involved in this discussion if that were the case? If 10k a month is the take home after taxes that's $120,000 a year. I wouldn't even have to work if my wife made 120k a year. I'd just stay home and raise the kids. That's what I did when I was unemployed anyway. No one should be struggling on 10k a month. If they were then they obviously have money management issues.Grimm, did you notice how you went from making Mack's daily rate, to $7500 a month, to $10,000 a month? Sure, you can make $10,000 in a month. All you have to do is work 120 to 150 hours a week of backbreaking labor. Wait
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
They are thinking about their emotions and the fear/hate mongering propoganda they are spoon fed. What else? They certainly aren't critical thinking fact checkers.I certainly don't see how adding the additional administrative cost of conducting drug screening would save the govt money. I don't know the cost of a drug screening, but I imagine one that would support having someone lose their benefits would need to be accurate enough to be costly. Then the question begs, how often is the person receiving the benefit to be screened? Only when they first apply? Every time they receive the benefit? At random? I mean really, what the hell are people thinking?
-
knee bender wrote:
☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
And what part of the constitution demands that our money, via taxes, should go to others in the form I welfare? For me to get a job I must take a drug test-is that unreasonable search and seizure? I not, then why is a chunk if my money going to another not worthy of the same demands? If they came and applied for a job at my company, after they have been on welfare, can I drug test them then?The conservatives seemed to have missed the part in the constitution that prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.
Well you live in a society so its your duty as a human to contribute. If you don't agree with that, you should leave the USA.
-
A corporation is not the government. I don't know why that's so hard for people to understand.
-
^
The irony is it almost is since 95% of those we vote in are owned by corporations. So the people that represent our government are stringed up by corporations. They do their bidding, not the voters. That's why I get tickled when people say they trust the private sector over 'we the people'. The same private sector that's wormed it's way into our government making our vote irrelevant? The same private sector that writes the majority of our legislation or lobby's legislation off the floor even though the majority clearly calls for it? Yeah, I don't think so. Get the money out of politics (movetoamend.org) and we can trust ourselves again with governing this country.
I may have gone off on a tangent, hillbilly, especially if you meant the government is not a business and shouldn't be compared to as such when it comes to money in and money out. It's not for profit, it's for the people. 👍
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC