Welfare states… WELFARE - THE RATIONAL WORLD THE TOP TEN WELFARE RECIPIENT STATES 1) New Mexico (PURPLE/Swing State) 2) Mississippi (Republican) 3) Alaska (Republican) 4) Louisiana (Republican) 5) West Virginia (Republican) 6) Alabama (Republican) 7) South Dakota (Republican) 8) Kentucky (Republican) 9) Virginia (Republican) 10) Montana (Republican) Sources: Tax Foundation, 2010 Census not left/rightwing biased tv stations (i.e. FOX, CNBC, MSNBC)
The people who have social security retirement only get shit. Yet Obama makes $700,000.00 year. Clinton makes 7.2million a year in retirement. And you paid for it. Good god there is no jobs. I'm glad these T.V. people pay for this. Others wth big money over $200,000. I'm only making $48,000.00 and I tax deducted politics. I'm not paying for it and obama is a fucking monkey and Clinton is a fat pussy zit wich sits on the fat octa moms head.
The guy's arguing that he wanted to invade Pakistan, which would be an increase in spending. If I remember correctly, he's only referring to a small scale attack on a known location of a terrorist cell if Pakistan wouldn't do anything about it. This is easily paid for by reducing troop levels in Iraq, which he suggested. His argument here was about the use of troops already over there, not sending more in that aren't there.
freein2339 3 months ago
The people who have social security retirement only get shit. Yet Obama makes $700,000.00 year. Clinton makes 7.2million a year in retirement. And you paid for it. Good god there is no jobs. I'm glad these T.V. people pay for this. Others wth big money over $200,000. I'm only making $48,000.00 and I tax deducted politics. I'm not paying for it and obama is a fucking monkey and Clinton is a fat pussy zit wich sits on the fat octa moms head.
XGViper2gamer 1 year ago
Pakistan might not "do anything" that we demand them to do, but the most certainly WILL do something if we attack within their borders
P.S. Pakistan has nukes, WW3 is certain if they use them.
attatawil 3 years ago
The guy's arguing that he wanted to invade Pakistan, which would be an increase in spending. If I remember correctly, he's only referring to a small scale attack on a known location of a terrorist cell if Pakistan wouldn't do anything about it. This is easily paid for by reducing troop levels in Iraq, which he suggested. His argument here was about the use of troops already over there, not sending more in that aren't there.
jayls5 3 years ago