PDA

View Full Version : GOP to reform food stamps.



Reason10
02-14-2015, 11:21 AM
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/republicans-looking-make-cuts-food-stamp-program

Some states have already pressed for tighter eligibility requirements, one state going as far as to making it a requirement for food stamp recipients to undergo drug tests (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scott-walker-drug-tests-food/2015/01/22/id/620180/).

Currently, a family can qualify for food stamps with four dependants and a gross monthly income less than $2,584.
According to The Journal, more than 20 states are preparing to reinstate time limits that were waived during the recession. They added that healthy adults without children would be limited to three months of benefits every three years if they are not employed or enrolled in job training for at least 20 hours a week.

If reinstated, it could cut benefits for 1 million people, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank that specializes in low-income policies.


Oh, and THIS came up in the article:

But some people still support the idea of limiting eligibility.

“The program was structured when malnutrition was a real problem,” Douglas Besharov, professor at the University of Maryland, told The Journal. “It has now become a form of income support.”


I'm sorry, but these people don't look like they're starving to death.
http://america.aljazeera.com/content/dam/ajam/images/articles/food_stamps_09212013.jpg

http://america.aljazeera.com/content/dam/ajam/images/articles/food_stamps_090613.jpg

And of course, the douchebag Democrats have weighed in.


“We cannot balance the budget on the backs of poor people,” said Jim Govern, Massachusetts Democratic Representative and member of the House of Agricultural Committee.

At least not the poor who are living today. The poor who haven't been born yet will get the bill.

Crepitus
02-14-2015, 11:32 AM
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/republicans-looking-make-cuts-food-stamp-program


Oh, and THIS came up in the article:


I'm sorry, but these people don't look like they're starving to death.

And of course, the douchebag Democrats have weighed in.



At least not the poor who are living today. The poor who haven't been born yet will get the bill.
Typical dpuchebag move by republicans, "lets starve the poor folks".

Chris
02-14-2015, 12:07 PM
It's going to be fun to watch you who call each other douchebags duke it out!

No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

Mac-7
02-14-2015, 12:21 PM
It's going to be fun to watch you who call each other douchebags duke it out!

No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

Of course you have no opinion on the subject.

I suppose anarchists don't care either way.

Chris
02-14-2015, 12:28 PM
Of course you have no opinion on the subject.

I suppose anarchists don't care either way.


I see you're off to the races making things up already.


Welfare, silly, would not exist under anarchy as their would be no state to collect taxes nor dole it out as welfare, corporate or social. So do try and make some semblance of sense, mac.

TrueBlue
02-14-2015, 12:39 PM
The one and only Ever-Thought by Republicans is how much it is going to cost the taxpayer to fund the Food Stamps program. There's never any other consideration but that. And then the accusations of abuse by those who don't need it, much of which is an unfounded belief.

What Republicans never care to address is the extreme poverty in many areas of these United States and people who are poor, jobless though they strive to get work, the elderly, the sick, the retired, the disabled, etc. who need Food Stamps in order to get a meal on the table each day. Without Food Stamps they could literally starve. But again, that's the least of Republican worries. Perhaps even going as far as to think that if they starved that would be one less person to worry about using the system. That's Conservative thinking for you. No compassion. Just thinking about the bottom line and the almighty dollar. Yet those who fall into the aforementioned categories continue to vote Republican and shoot themselves in the foot each time they do without fully realizing the consequence of their votes for that political party.

Food Stamps Are Essential For Healthy Living To Many Needy Americans. Instead of trying to make cuts to this vital program we should be increasing the program so that those who are truly needy do not have to go hungry in a country that is known for its humanitarian stance and one that sends BILLIONS of dollars overseas each year to feed the hungry and the poor in other countries (which is alright as they too need the help) but yet wants to make CUTS to their own right here in this country. Yes folks, that's real Conservative thinking for you. Let's starve our own right here in this country but keep on promoting tax-cuts for the rich!

Here is something for all to read concerning the Food Stamps program. The links provided are important.

This One Map Shows Why Food Stamps Are So Crucial

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115716/food-stamps-nations-most-important-poverty-program


"The program kept 4.9 milllion out of poverty in 2012, including more than 2 million children. Yet more than 16 percent of Americans, including 22.4 percent of children, struggle with "food insecurity"—which means hunger."

hanger4
02-14-2015, 12:52 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/icons/icon4.png The Vital Need for the Food Stamp Program

Would you so kind and show us where in the hell the OP

said anything about eliminating the program ??

Chris
02-14-2015, 12:55 PM
The one and only Ever-Thought by Republicans is how much it is going to cost the taxpayer to fund the Food Stamps program. There's never any other consideration but that. And then the accusations of abuse by those who don't need it, much of which is an unfounded belief.

What Republicans never care to address is the extreme poverty in many areas of these United States and people who are poor, jobless though they strive to get work, the elderly, the sick, the retired, the disabled, etc. who need Food Stamps in order to get a meal on the table each day. Without Food Stamps they could literally starve. But again, that's the least of Republican worries. Perhaps even going as far as to think that if they starved that would be one less person to worry about using the system. That's Conservative thinking for you. No compassion. Just thinking about the bottom line and the almighty dollar. Yet those who fall into the aforementioned categories continue to vote Republican and shoot themselves in the foot each time they do without fully realizing the consequence of their votes for that political party.

Food Stamps Are Essential For Healthy Living To Many Needy Americans. Instead of trying to make cuts to this vital program we should be increasing the program so that those who are truly needy do not have to go hungry in a country that is known for its humanitarian stance and one that sends BILLIONS of dollars overseas each year to feed the hungry and the poor in other countries (which is alright as they too need the help) but yet wants to make CUTS to their own right here in this country. Yes folks, that's real Conservative thinking for you. Let's starve our own right here in this country but keep on promoting tax-cuts for the rich!

Here is something for all to read concerning the Food Stamps program. The links provided are important.

This One Map Shows Why Food Stamps Are So Crucial

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115716/food-stamps-nations-most-important-poverty-program



So tell us, blue, how will food stamps help those in poverty out of it?

TrueBlue
02-14-2015, 01:08 PM
So tell us, blue, how will food stamps help those in poverty out of it?
Great question, Chris! And the answer is it will help to keep them and their family alive while they are looking for work.

Chris
02-14-2015, 01:12 PM
Great question, Chris! And the answer is it will help to keep them and their family alive while they are looking for work.


What would be the incentive to look for work when receiving food stamps and other welfare means they don't need to, act, in fact, as disincentives?

I think your point reveals the shortcoming of the Democratic solution, that is, the appeal to emotion demands a solution, but stops short of finding one.

Cigar
02-14-2015, 01:14 PM
:grin: About a Generation or two and it will all be corrected

TrueBlue
02-14-2015, 01:23 PM
Would you so kind and show us where in the hell the OP

said anything about eliminating the program ??
You don't think that Senior Republicans are going to come out and openly say they are for eliminating the Food Stamps program do you? That's why that may not have been mentioned in the report. *However,* that is their intent and virtually ALL of the newly elected Republican Senators want to do just that!

Of course, the reality of the situation is that they are just shooting themselves in the foot if they think they will be successful and able to accomplish such a monumental feat. And they will have to kiss their Senate seats goodbye come next election. Oh, but try Republicans will and that's what the vulnerable, unsuspecting American public needs to become aware of and counter.

Here's your PROOF.

Newly Elected Republican Senators Sign Pledge to Eliminate Food Stamp Program in 2015

http://dailyleak.org/2014/12/newly-elected-republican-senators-agree-to-eliminate-food-stamp-program/


"One hundred percent of newly elected Republican Senators have agreed to vote to eliminate the food stamps program including;"

hanger4
02-14-2015, 01:25 PM
:grin: About a Generation or two and it will all be corrected

And how's that Cigar ?? no one on food stamps ??

or everyone on food stamps ??

The Xl
02-14-2015, 01:25 PM
No problem with reforming this, but there are probably things that should be reformed before this, and won't be.

Not a big fan of foodstamps, or anything of the sort in general, but cracking down on this while corporate subsidies and the like run wild is kind of ridiculous and sickening.

Peter1469
02-14-2015, 01:27 PM
It's going to be fun to watch you who call each other douchebags duke it out!

No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

And they will vote for the establishment all the time.

hanger4
02-14-2015, 01:37 PM
You don't think that Senior Republicans are going to come out and openly say they are for eliminating the Food Stamps program do you? That's why that may not have been mentioned in the report. *However,* that is their intent and virtually ALL of the newly elected Republican Senators want to do just that!

Of course, the reality of the situation is that they are just shooting themselves in the foot if they think they will be successful and able to accomplish such a monumental feat. And they will have to kiss their Senate seats goodbye come next election. Oh, but try Republicans will and that's what the vulnerable, unsuspecting American public needs to become aware of and counter.

Here's your PROOF.

Newly Elected Republican Senators Sign Pledge to Eliminate Food Stamp Program in 2015

http://dailyleak.org/2014/12/newly-elected-republican-senators-agree-to-eliminate-food-stamp-program/

And what's wrong with replacing it with more affordable free market solution ??

Chris
02-14-2015, 01:37 PM
And they will vote for the establishment all the time.

Status quo fence sitters!

Peter1469
02-14-2015, 01:47 PM
Status quo fence sitters!


That is what I was thinking.

domer76
02-14-2015, 01:48 PM
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/republicans-looking-make-cuts-food-stamp-program


Oh, and THIS came up in the article:


I'm sorry, but these people don't look like they're starving to death.
http://america.aljazeera.com/content/dam/ajam/images/articles/food_stamps_09212013.jpg

http://america.aljazeera.com/content/dam/ajam/images/articles/food_stamps_090613.jpg

And of course, the douchebag Democrats have weighed in.



At least not the poor who are living today. The poor who haven't been born yet will get the bill.
He is right, you know. We will never balance the budget on the backs of poor people.

Peter1469
02-14-2015, 02:01 PM
We are not trying to balance the budget.

Dr. Who
02-14-2015, 02:10 PM
And what's wrong with replacing it with more affordable free market solution ??
What would that be? The definition of free market means an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. How does that tie into feeding poor people, unless the idea is for the government to contract out the role to private agencies to provide services?

Chris
02-14-2015, 02:14 PM
What would that be? The definition of free market means an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. How does that tie into feeding poor people, unless the idea is for the government to contract out the role to private agencies to provide services?



No, free market means voluntary exchange. Something of value for something of value.

Dr. Who
02-14-2015, 02:25 PM
No, free market means voluntary exchange. Something of value for something of value.
Not according to dictionary.com.
"an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies."

Chris
02-14-2015, 02:34 PM
Not according to dictionary.com.
"an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies."

Oh, boy, argument by dictionary.

The free market is voluntary exchange of something of value for something of value. True, companies compete to produce things consumers value.

Dr. Who
02-14-2015, 02:40 PM
Oh, boy, argument by dictionary.

The free market is voluntary exchange of something of value for something of value. True, companies compete to produce things consumers value.
So, even with your definition, how would you apply it to the GOP's desire to bring a free market solution to social welfare? I offered that they might want to contract out to private agencies to provide the service. Do you disagree with my conclusion or only the definition of free market?

Chris
02-14-2015, 03:02 PM
So, even with your definition, how would you apply it to the GOP's desire to bring a free market solution to social welfare? I offered that they might want to contract out to private agencies to provide the service. Do you disagree with my conclusion or only the definition of free market?


I don't know that the GOP seeks a free market solution. It was hanger suggested the alternative to Rep and Dem solutions, namely a free market solution. Whether a public or a private agency provides the service, what value is exchanged in return?

Dr. Who
02-14-2015, 03:08 PM
I don't know that the GOP seeks a free market solution. It was hanger suggested the alternative to Rep and Dem solutions, namely a free market solution. Whether a public or a private agency provides the service, what value is exchanged in return?
Hanger was responding to the link in True's response post #12:
Senators Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.).
“Small businesses and the American people cannot afford President Obama’s countless new regulations and tax increases. There is a right way and a wrong to improve our country’s welfare system, and the President’s policies just aren’t working. We need to put poor people first and lower costs,” Senator Gardner said in a statement.
Senator Perdue stated on his campaign website that he was one of the millions of Americans who would support free market solutions to feeding the nation.
“The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is an overreaching federal program that has actually worsened the nutritional standards in this nation and increased costs. I am one of the millions of Americans who wish this program would end. To make matters worse, SNAP benefits are discouraging full-time job creation. We need to repeal the SNAP program and replace it with more affordable free market solutions,” Perdue said on his campaign page.

Chris
02-14-2015, 03:20 PM
Hanger was responding to the link in True's response post #12:
Senators Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.).
“Small businesses and the American people cannot afford President Obama’s countless new regulations and tax increases. There is a right way and a wrong to improve our country’s welfare system, and the President’s policies just aren’t working. We need to put poor people first and lower costs,” Senator Gardner said in a statement.
Senator Perdue stated on his campaign website that he was one of the millions of Americans who would support free market solutions to feeding the nation.
“The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is an overreaching federal program that has actually worsened the nutritional standards in this nation and increased costs. I am one of the millions of Americans who wish this program would end. To make matters worse, SNAP benefits are discouraging full-time job creation. We need to repeal the SNAP program and replace it with more affordable free market solutions,” Perdue said on his campaign page.

I somehow doubt Republicans generally understand free market solutions. But if there's exchange value for value it shouldn't cost anything in fact possibly generate wealth.

Common
02-14-2015, 03:26 PM
No, free market means voluntary exchange. Something of value for something of value.

Thats fantastic "if" you have to something to exchange with, if not were right back where we started

Chris
02-14-2015, 03:31 PM
Thats fantastic "if" you have to something to exchange with, if not were right back where we started

Uh, work.

There seems to be a problem with illegal immigrants in that business needs the labor. Well, there you go.

Or perform various community services.

Or promise to pay back once you find a job.

TANSTAAFL.

Dr. Who
02-14-2015, 03:34 PM
Uh, work.

There seems to be a problem with illegal immigrants in that business needs the labor. Well, there you go.

Or perform various community services.

Or promise to pay back once you find a job.

TANSTAAFL.
I offered a similar solution in another thread and was told that those are typically liberal progressive solutions.

Chris
02-14-2015, 03:39 PM
I offered a similar solution in another thread and was told that those are typically liberal progressive solutions.

Nothing is handed out without something in exchange so the solution you offered was free market.

There would need to be a contingency for those unable to work, but even Hayek allowed for that.

PolWatch
02-14-2015, 03:45 PM
1996...Clinton signed a bi-partisan work to welfare reform act. It has since been allowed to just fade from view...by both a repub & a dem president. Real attempts to make changes since 1996 = 0...but we get to hear a lot of screaming about the subject.

Drug testing for welfare recipients? Florida's great experiment? 2.6% found to be using mainly marijuana...national average positive for drugs was 8.7%. Of course, the company who tested (owned by the governor's wife) really thought it was a great idea.

Bob
02-14-2015, 03:46 PM
Typical dpuchebag move by republicans, "lets starve the poor folks".

Are you kidding me? Daily from M-F this area has food banks. You can get a grocery cart of food for free. I worked for one of the food banks and we did that if you were single. With a family, we gave them much more. All with no help by the Feds.

Chris
02-14-2015, 03:54 PM
1996...Clinton signed a bi-partisan work to welfare reform act. It has since been allowed to just fade from view...by both a repub & a dem president. Real attempts to make changes since 1996 = 0...but we get to hear a lot of screaming about the subject.

Drug testing for welfare recipients? Florida's great experiment? 2.6% found to be using mainly marijuana...national average positive for drugs was 8.7%. Of course, the company who tested (owned by the governor's wife) really thought it was a great idea.

PRWORA, part of Contract with America, signed, as you say by Clinton.


PRWORA instituted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which became effective July 1, 1997. TANF replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program—which had been in effect since 1935—and supplanted the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program (JOBS) of 1988. The law was heralded as a "reassertion of America's work ethic" by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, largely in response to the bill's workfare component. TANF was reauthorized in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Consequences, from link:

http://i.snag.gy/kRGjq.jpg
Overall decline in welfare monthly benefits (in 2006 dollars)

http://i.snag.gy/wqO45.jpg
Unemployment rate during the Clinton administration. The orange line indicates when PRWORA was signed.


And then as you say virtually nothing since.

Dr. Who
02-14-2015, 03:55 PM
Nothing is handed out without something in exchange so the solution you offered was free market.

There would need to be a contingency for those unable to work, but even Hayek allowed for that.
I suspect that for some conservatives the only solution to the poor is to cut them off without a penny and let them starve. I prefer options that provide a hand up - help them develop skills in exchange for community service until the debt is repaid.

Bob
02-14-2015, 04:01 PM
I suspect that for some conservatives the only solution to the poor is to cut them off without a penny and let them starve. I prefer options that provide a hand up - help them develop skills in exchange for community service until the debt is repaid.

We are not that way at all. I for instance worked at the local food bank to help the people with no food.

We did not require the huge pack of paperwork the state requires. Bums came there and I handed them bagged lunches since they had no place to stay.

Dr. Who
02-14-2015, 04:13 PM
We are not that way at all. I for instance worked at the local food bank to help the people with no food.

We did not require the huge pack of paperwork the state requires. Bums came there and I handed them bagged lunches since they had no place to stay.
Bob, you cannot possibly speak for all conservatives. We have food banks in my city as well, and yet they run out of food periodically. It is good that they are there, but they can't even reliably supplement the food needs of the poor, never mind be the sole source of their nutritional needs.

Bob
02-14-2015, 04:26 PM
Bob, you cannot possibly speak for all conservatives. We have food banks in my city as well, and yet they run out of food periodically. It is good that they are there, but they can't even reliably supplement the food needs of the poor, never mind be the sole source of their nutritional needs.

That was my point to you. You can't speak for we conservatives.

The food bank here I worked at got supplies of store deli sandwiches. Those went into the bags. Stores supplied us with a lot of food. I was surprised they donated it.

I can't speak for yours but here, we gave them food by the grocery cart full. The family got a lot more than the single person got.

Chris
02-14-2015, 04:28 PM
I suspect that for some conservatives the only solution to the poor is to cut them off without a penny and let them starve. I prefer options that provide a hand up - help them develop skills in exchange for community service until the debt is repaid.

You just mean Republicans, who think they're conservative.

Hand ups are better than hand outs.

Maybe even some sort of pay it forward system could be worked out.

domer76
02-14-2015, 04:30 PM
We are not trying to balance the budget.
Reason10 had a response to the Senator's comment. I was pointing out the truth of the Senator's statement.

Dr. Who
02-14-2015, 04:45 PM
That was my point to you. You can't speak for we conservatives.

The food bank here I worked at got supplies of store deli sandwiches. Those went into the bags. Stores supplied us with a lot of food. I was surprised they donated it.

I can't speak for yours but here, we gave them food by the grocery cart full. The family got a lot more than the single person got. Bob, some conservatives have even stated on this forum that they don't care what happens to the poor so long as they don't have to pay for it. I take that literally to mean that the poor should be on their own to live or die by their own wits. I don't think it is the opinion of all conservatives, just some. Most people agree that the welfare system is broken and needs drastic reform. I support helping people to help themselves and in doing so, have them pay back society for that help. It has more dignity than a free ride and gives people the necessary skills to take care of themselves. Unconditional welfare only creates dependency and hopelessness. By the same token, there are people who work very hard, but don't make enough to cover their housing needs and feed their children. Hungry children don't learn as well as children who are properly fed. I think it was the original intent of the food stamp program to help such people. The program has perhaps lost its focus and needs to be reviewed and revamped.

Max Rockatansky
02-14-2015, 05:00 PM
That was my point to you. You can't speak for we conservatives.

The food bank here I worked at got supplies of store deli sandwiches. Those went into the bags. Stores supplied us with a lot of food. I was surprised they donated it.

I can't speak for yours but here, we gave them food by the grocery cart full. The family got a lot more than the single person got.

That's because they can't sell expired or near-expired food. They could trash it and take the loss or donate it and take the charity tax deduction.

Bob
02-14-2015, 05:23 PM
@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), some conservatives have even stated on this forum that they don't care what happens to the poor so long as they don't have to pay for it. I take that literally to mean that the poor should be on their own to live or die by their own wits. I don't think it is the opinion of all conservatives, just some. Most people agree that the welfare system is broken and needs drastic reform. I support helping people to help themselves and in doing so, have them pay back society for that help. It has more dignity than a free ride and gives people the necessary skills to take care of themselves. Unconditional welfare only creates dependency and hopelessness. By the same token, there are people who work very hard, but don't make enough to cover their housing needs and feed their children. Hungry children don't learn as well as children who are properly fed. I think it was the original intent of the food stamp program to help such people. The program has perhaps lost its focus and needs to be reviewed and revamped.

Have you heard of Chris Gardner? I will link to story at end.

I don't believe any conservative believes in starving the poor. If they made that claim, did you press them on it. I am sure many so called Democrat / Liberals do not feed the poor. They know very well there are a lot of the poor yet do not do more than talk about the poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Gardner

My point is that a poor person has a way to get rich. They don't need to depend on you all the time.

Bob
02-14-2015, 05:24 PM
That's because they can't sell expired or near-expired food. They could trash it and take the loss or donate it and take the charity tax deduction.

I looked at dates. They could still sell a lot of it. I have no doubt it was a tax write off. Such is the dearth of the tax man.

Bob
02-14-2015, 05:26 PM
@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), some conservatives have even stated on this forum that they don't care what happens to the poor so long as they don't have to pay for it. I take that literally to mean that the poor should be on their own to live or die by their own wits. I don't think it is the opinion of all conservatives, just some. Most people agree that the welfare system is broken and needs drastic reform. I support helping people to help themselves and in doing so, have them pay back society for that help. It has more dignity than a free ride and gives people the necessary skills to take care of themselves. Unconditional welfare only creates dependency and hopelessness. By the same token, there are people who work very hard, but don't make enough to cover their housing needs and feed their children. Hungry children don't learn as well as children who are properly fed. I think it was the original intent of the food stamp program to help such people. The program has perhaps lost its focus and needs to be reviewed and revamped.

You are actually following the LDS church teachings on this issue. Bet you did not realize it.

Dr. Who
02-14-2015, 06:40 PM
Have you heard of Chris Gardner? I will link to story at end.

I don't believe any conservative believes in starving the poor. If they made that claim, did you press them on it. I am sure many so called Democrat / Liberals do not feed the poor. They know very well there are a lot of the poor yet do not do more than talk about the poor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Gardner

My point is that a poor person has a way to get rich. They don't need to depend on you all the time.
I saw the movie they made about his life. It was quite inspirational.

Dr. Who
02-14-2015, 06:43 PM
You are actually following the LDS church teachings on this issue. Bet you did not realize it.
I subscribe to the old proverb: "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"

Howey
02-14-2015, 07:04 PM
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/republicans-looking-make-cuts-food-stamp-program


Oh, and THIS came up in the article:


I'm sorry, but these people don't look like they're starving to death.
http://america.aljazeera.com/content/dam/ajam/images/articles/food_stamps_09212013.jpg

http://america.aljazeera.com/content/dam/ajam/images/articles/food_stamps_090613.jpg

And of course, the douchebag Democrats have weighed in.



At least not the poor who are living today. The poor who haven't been born yet will get the bill.

The drug test bullsh*t has already been deemed unconstitutional. Why can't legislatures do stuff that's constitutional?

And...the term isn't "reform".

It's "gut".

Howey
02-14-2015, 07:05 PM
I cannot believe nobody on this forum gets food stamps or has a family member or loved one who needs them.

What a heartless, uncaring nation this has become.

Howey
02-14-2015, 07:06 PM
You are actually following the LDS church teachings on this issue. Bet you did not realize it.

Yeah. The Mormon Church is into charity because they can funnel money in and out of it tax free.

Max Rockatansky
02-14-2015, 07:16 PM
The drug test bullsh*t has already been deemed unconstitutional. Why can't legislatures do stuff that's constitutional?

And...the term isn't "reform".

It's "gut".

Please cite the ruling where drug testing people on government benefits was unconstitutional. As long as it's applied to everyone and not just those of a certain race, gender, religion, etc, then it's legal AFAIK.

That said, while I think taxpayers should reserve the option, I think the cost of testing would greatly increase the cost of the program. We'd be paying more for plastic cups and shipping samples than on food.

Dr. Who
02-14-2015, 07:49 PM
I cannot believe nobody on this forum gets food stamps or has a family member or loved one who needs them.

What a heartless, uncaring nation this has become.
I have one sister in law that spent some time on welfare when her husband deserted her with two children and one on the way - she was 7 months pregnant. She is now a real estate agent. No one in my family is currently in need of assistance. That doesn't mean that I don't care about the situation in which people find themselves, with one or both parents laid off from work and few job prospects, or working jobs that just don't pay the way they used to, so that they are hard pressed to eat properly. I think that there is a place for food stamps or a similar program. However, if the program is being abused, it should be corrected.

Captain Obvious
02-14-2015, 07:57 PM
It's going to be fun to watch you who call each other douchebags duke it out!

No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

/thread

No need to read beyond this post.

Redrose
02-14-2015, 09:03 PM
I have one sister in law that spent some time on welfare when her husband deserted her with two children and one on the way - she was 7 months pregnant. She is now a real estate agent. No one in my family is currently in need of assistance. That doesn't mean that I don't care about the situation in which people find themselves, with one or both parents laid off from work and few job prospects, or working jobs that just don't pay the way they used to, so that they are hard pressed to eat properly. I think that there is a place for food stamps or a similar program. However, if the program is being abused, it should be corrected.


No one in the GOP wants to hurt those who truly need assistance. This admin has made it much too easy to get welfare and assistance, causing it to be ripe with fraud. Of course, those who would be affected by the GOP rules to limit and emliminate fraud will be very vocal and slam the GOP as anti welfare. There is nothing wrongwith working to reduce the fraud in these government programs. People should be critical of those who want to keep dishonest people on the welfare rolls, not those trying to eliminate fraud.

Dr. Who
02-14-2015, 09:12 PM
No one in the GOP wants to hurt those who truly need assistance. This admin has made it much too easy to get welfare and assistance, causing it to be ripe with fraud. Of course, those who would be affected by the GOP rules to limit and emliminate fraud will be very vocal and slam the GOP as anti welfare. There is nothing wrongwith working to reduce the fraud in these government programs. People should be critical of those who want to keep dishonest people on the welfare rolls, not those trying to eliminate fraud.
Social welfare has always been a fraud magnet. Until it becomes impossible to claim in multiple jurisdictions using false identification and for people to work under the table or under other ID's, there will always be fraud. I think that facial recognition software should be adopted to avoid such fraud.

domer76
02-14-2015, 09:14 PM
I subscribe to the old proverb: "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"

I always thought it was "teach a man to fish and he'll drink all your beer."

PolWatch
02-14-2015, 09:40 PM
Please cite the ruling where drug testing people on government benefits was unconstitutional. As long as it's applied to everyone and not just those of a certain race, gender, religion, etc, then it's legal AFAIK.

That said, while I think taxpayers should reserve the option, I think the cost of testing would greatly increase the cost of the program. We'd be paying more for plastic cups and shipping samples than on food.
KEY WEST, Fla. — A federal judge on Tuesday struck down as unconstitutional a Florida law that required welfare applicants to undergo mandatory drug testing, setting the stage for a legal battle that could affect similar efforts nationwide.

Judge Mary S. Scriven of the United States District Court in Orlando held that the testing requirement, the signature legislation of Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican who campaigned on the issue, violated the protection against unreasonable searches.

“The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied,” she wrote. The ruling made permanent an earlier, temporary ban by the judge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html?_r=0

Reason10
02-14-2015, 11:00 PM
Typical dpuchebag move by republicans, "lets starve the poor folks".

In other words, you haven't read anything.

Did they actually teach you how to read in that unionized high school diploma mill?

Reason10
02-14-2015, 11:01 PM
The one and only Ever-Thought by Republicans is how much it is going to cost the taxpayer to fund the Food Stamps program. There's never any other consideration but that. And then the accusations of abuse by those who don't need it, much of which is an unfounded belief.

What Republicans never care to address is the extreme poverty in many areas of these United States and people who are poor, jobless though they strive to get work, the elderly, the sick, the retired, the disabled, etc. who need Food Stamps in order to get a meal on the table each day. Without Food Stamps they could literally starve. But again, that's the least of Republican worries. Perhaps even going as far as to think that if they starved that would be one less person to worry about using the system. That's Conservative thinking for you. No compassion. Just thinking about the bottom line and the almighty dollar. Yet those who fall into the aforementioned categories continue to vote Republican and shoot themselves in the foot each time they do without fully realizing the consequence of their votes for that political party.

Food Stamps Are Essential For Healthy Living To Many Needy Americans. Instead of trying to make cuts to this vital program we should be increasing the program so that those who are truly needy do not have to go hungry in a country that is known for its humanitarian stance and one that sends BILLIONS of dollars overseas each year to feed the hungry and the poor in other countries (which is alright as they too need the help) but yet wants to make CUTS to their own right here in this country. Yes folks, that's real Conservative thinking for you. Let's starve our own right here in this country but keep on promoting tax-cuts for the rich!

Here is something for all to read concerning the Food Stamps program. The links provided are important.

This One Map Shows Why Food Stamps Are So Crucial

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115716/food-stamps-nations-most-important-poverty-program

Food stamps are crucial so that Democrats can buy votes from the ignorant.

Reason10
02-14-2015, 11:04 PM
You don't think that Senior Republicans are going to come out and openly say they are for eliminating the Food Stamps program do you? That's why that may not have been mentioned in the report. *However,* that is their intent and virtually ALL of the newly elected Republican Senators want to do just that!

Of course, the reality of the situation is that they are just shooting themselves in the foot if they think they will be successful and able to accomplish such a monumental feat. And they will have to kiss their Senate seats goodbye come next election. Oh, but try Republicans will and that's what the vulnerable, unsuspecting American public needs to become aware of and counter.

Here's your PROOF.

Newly Elected Republican Senators Sign Pledge to Eliminate Food Stamp Program in 2015

http://dailyleak.org/2014/12/newly-elected-republican-senators-agree-to-eliminate-food-stamp-program/

In other words, your response to ACTUAL Congressional action is to LIE about it?
The reason I say that is because even the BRAIN DEAD (and those even less intelligent, such as liberals) realize that Republican would never be able to hold on to public office if they were to even suggest such a thing. The FUCKING THREAD is about requiring ABLE BODIED LAZY FUCKING DOUCHEBAGS TO WORK OR BE FUCKING CUT OFF.

Why can't you liberals EVER discuss an issue without fucking LYING all the goddam time?

Reason10
02-14-2015, 11:05 PM
Great question, Chris! And the answer is it will help to keep them and their family alive while they are looking for work.

History has told us that it doesn't work. Feed the lazy douchebags and they sit on their fat asses.

Reason10
02-14-2015, 11:08 PM
You don't think that Senior Republicans are going to come out and openly say they are for eliminating the Food Stamps program do you?
WHY ARE YOU FUCKING LYING ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD? NOBODY IS SUGGESTING ENDING THE PROGRAM?


That's why that may not have been mentioned in the report. *However,* that is their intent and virtually ALL of the newly elected Republican Senators want to do just that!

PROOF?
Oh, and you need a RELIABLE link, not some bullshit blog called TAKE A LEAK FOR SOCIALISM.

Max Rockatansky
02-15-2015, 02:35 AM
WHY ARE YOU FUCKING LYING ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD? NOBODY IS SUGGESTING ENDING THE PROGRAM?

...and if you like your plan you can keep your plan. BTDT.

Common
02-15-2015, 05:03 AM
The GOP isnt trying to reform anything, they are trying to cut foodstamps across the board.
It started out as stopping the fraud to cutting food stamps for everyone.

Its literally disgusting that republicans can exert such great effort to go after food stamps When they fight to continue subsidies to rich corporations and vote for anything for the rich


They are truly a koch and the like bought and paid for party.

Max Rockatansky
02-15-2015, 09:37 AM
The GOP isnt trying to reform anything, they are trying to cut foodstamps across the board.
It started out as stopping the fraud to cutting food stamps for everyone.

Its literally disgusting that republicans can exert such great effort to go after food stamps When they fight to continue subsidies to rich corporations and vote for anything for the rich


They are truly a koch and the like bought and paid for party.

Starving people tend to riot. If we let the Democrats take our guns, it won't be much of a riot.

Reason10
02-15-2015, 09:45 AM
1996...Clinton signed a bi-partisan work to welfare reform act. It has since been allowed to just fade from view...by both a repub & a dem president. Real attempts to make changes since 1996 = 0...but we get to hear a lot of screaming about the subject.

Drug testing for welfare recipients? Florida's great experiment? 2.6% found to be using mainly marijuana...national average positive for drugs was 8.7%. Of course, the company who tested (owned by the governor's wife) really thought it was a great idea.

I don't think you fully understand the Florida experiment. It wasn't necessarily about saving money on welfare by kicking out the crack addicts. It was about fairness. If STATE EMPLOYEES (everyone from police to school teachers) were required to get a drug test, then it's only fair that the lazy mooching bums have to do the same.

Oh, by the way the biased report suggesting that 2% doesn't account for the HUGE number of welfare bums who WERE on drugs but decided that getting tested meant going to JAIL. So they simply got off welfare.

Reason10
02-15-2015, 09:48 AM
The GOP isnt trying to reform anything, they are trying to cut foodstamps across the board.
It started out as stopping the fraud to cutting food stamps for everyone.

Food stamps NEED to be cut across the board. Those lazy bums need a swift kick in the ass. They need to get a job.


Its literally disgusting that republicans can exert such great effort to go after food stamps When they fight to continue subsidies to rich corporations and vote for anything for the rich
First, you'll have to produce a reliable (read NON LIBERAL) link showing actual tax dollars being paid to corporations. Secondly, rich corporations actually add to the economy, in terms of a tax base, goods and services and jobs. We need them a lot more than we need the welfare bums.


They are truly a koch and the like bought and paid for party.
Actually, Democrats are a true SOROS bought and paid for party.

Peter1469
02-15-2015, 09:55 AM
Starving people tend to riot. If we let the Democrats take our guns, it won't be much of a riot.

Yes it will. You can make all sorts of weapons with common household items. :smiley:

PolWatch
02-15-2015, 09:56 AM
I don't think you fully understand the Florida experiment. It wasn't necessarily about saving money on welfare by kicking out the crack addicts. It was about fairness. If STATE EMPLOYEES (everyone from police to school teachers) were required to get a drug test, then it's only fair that the lazy mooching bums have to do the same.

Oh, by the way the biased report suggesting that 2% doesn't account for the HUGE number of welfare bums who WERE on drugs but decided that getting tested meant going to JAIL. So they simply got off welfare.

First: I have no problem with requiring drug testing of anyone. I also believe that all elected officials should be subject to the same drug testing requirements as the rest of us. You believe that appx 6.1% just walked away without being tested? interesting idea

Nothing to say about the testing company being owned by the governor's wife? I thought that was an important issue.

Reason10
02-15-2015, 10:06 AM
First: I have no problem with requiring drug testing of anyone. I also believe that all elected officials should be subject to the same drug testing requirements as the rest of us. You believe that appx 6.1% just walked away without being tested? interesting idea

It might have been an even higher number.


Nothing to say about the testing company being owned by the governor's wife? I thought that was an important issue.

You DO know that Governor Rick Scott made his money in the health care industry. And when he was inaugurated, he put all his assets in a blind trust, so there wouldn't be a conflict of interest. As far as his wife owning a testing company, I'd be interested to see if there was any price gouging in that area. But suggesting that the Scott family would create a conflict of interest just to make MORE money when they are already worth gazillions is kind of ridiculous.

Chris
02-15-2015, 10:10 AM
/thread

No need to read beyond this post.


In a way it rescued the thread from a flame fest. There's been some good discussion.

PolWatch
02-15-2015, 10:12 AM
I think the entire population of politicians is more than slightly ridiculous. They have all gotten so used to operating like Oz-Behind-The-Curtain that they forget that some people are occasionally watching them. The business was put under the control of his wife (according to reports). Was this a planned action to make money? I doubt it...it was aimed at getting attention & votes (usual political motivations). The profit was just a happy coincidence.

Chris
02-15-2015, 10:12 AM
No one in the GOP wants to hurt those who truly need assistance. This admin has made it much too easy to get welfare and assistance, causing it to be ripe with fraud. Of course, those who would be affected by the GOP rules to limit and emliminate fraud will be very vocal and slam the GOP as anti welfare. There is nothing wrongwith working to reduce the fraud in these government programs. People should be critical of those who want to keep dishonest people on the welfare rolls, not those trying to eliminate fraud.


The fraud of welfare, be it social or corporate, is buying votes.

But you're right, the GOP, DNC, and others, all care, we just go about it in different ways.

Chris
02-15-2015, 10:13 AM
I always thought it was "teach a man to fish and he'll drink all your beer."

Or teach a man to brew and he'll fish all day.

Chris
02-15-2015, 10:15 AM
In other words, you haven't read anything.

Did they actually teach you how to read in that unionized high school diploma mill?



He probably saw your well-poisoning name-calling douchebag and just responded in kind.

PolWatch
02-15-2015, 10:15 AM
Or teach a man to brew and he'll fish all day.

Every time I hear that adage about teaching a man to fish, I remember a person who insisted it was a Bible verse and it proved that God wanted us to stop all programs to help feed the poor.....

Chris
02-15-2015, 10:23 AM
Every time I hear that adage about teaching a man to fish, I remember a person who insisted it was a Bible verse and it proved that God wanted us to stop all programs to help feed the poor.....


Well now you made me look it up:


This proverb has fallen foul of the spurious etymological rule: 'if you don't know the origin of an enigmatic proverb, say it is ancient Chinese'. May you live in interesting times and a picture is worth a thousand words suffer the same fate. There's no evidence to link 'Give a man a fish...' with China. A further confusion over the origin is that the authoritative and generally trustworthy Oxford Dictionary of Quotations says it is of mid-20th century origin.

The expression actually originated in Britain in the mid 19th century.

Anne Isabella Ritchie, the daughter of William Makepeace Thackeray, (who, if her photograph is any guide, was a studious young woman) wrote a story titled Mrs. Dymond, sometime in the 1880s and it includes this line.

"He certainly doesn't practise his precepts, but I suppose the patron meant that if you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour; if you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn."

http://i.snag.gy/ulejr.jpg

Reason10
02-15-2015, 10:26 AM
He probably saw your well-poisoning name-calling douchebag and just responded in kind.

My daughters taught me the douchebag phrase. I'm a little old and some of my standard zippos sound a bit trite. Some would be censored by the forum filter. The ones that come up include "fucking asshole" "fuckhead" "Sack of shit" etc. I think A-Hole came out about 20 years ago, and obviously that's a little old fashioned.

Something really cool about "Douchebag." Nice combination of consonants. Duh shhh, agggg. Nice vowel array: OOOSH. AGGGG. Doooshbagggg. Without even knowing what it means
http://witchesbrewpress.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/douchebag1.jpg
the word is just super cool, when putting down a-holes. It's hip. It's so 21st Century. Douchebag, or "dick" is hip and happening. About a couple of years ago, someone came up with "a bag of dicks," which I found a little bizarre.

By the way, I already know that "douchebag" is a recycled term. George Carlin touched on it in one of his Seventies comedy albums. (I'm thinking "Occupation Foole" but I could be wrong.) Still, it has kind of stood the test of time.

Tell ya the truth, my FAVORITE put down phrase would NEVER make the cut, even though it's probably hipper than anything else out there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6nCBQXJdRg
Hey, ASS BUTT!

Chris
02-15-2015, 10:33 AM
Hey, you either want to engage in discussion or detract from it.

Mac-7
02-15-2015, 11:03 AM
So tell us, blue, how will food stamps help those in poverty out of it?

I think you have stumbled upon an acorn.

another question for trueblue is how after over 200 years of existence and as the richest country in the world how can there be any poor people?

the poor have to be doing something wrong

Chris
02-15-2015, 11:16 AM
Our poor would be rich most places around the world.

I see two problems. One is welfare that disincentivizes against pursuit of happiness. Two is government regulations and red tape against the same pursuit. Just one example: It doesn't cost all that much to outfit a car as a taxi but to get a taxi licence in many places costs: In New York, taxi medallions have topped $1 million. In Boston, $700,000. In Philadelphia, $400,000. In Miami, $300,000. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/20/taxi-medallions-have-been-the-best-investment-in-america-for-years-now-uber-may-be-changing-that/)

Mac-7
02-15-2015, 11:29 AM
Our poor would be rich most places around the world.

I see two problems. One is welfare that disincentivizes against pursuit of happiness. Two is government regulations and red tape against the same pursuit. Just one example: It doesn't cost all that much to outfit a car as a taxi but to get a taxi licence in many places costs: In New York, taxi medallions have topped $1 million. In Boston, $700,000. In Philadelphia, $400,000. In Miami, $300,000. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/20/taxi-medallions-have-been-the-best-investment-in-america-for-years-now-uber-may-be-changing-that/)

I largely agree with that

its the reason that no matter how much we spend welfare the poor never go away

Howey
02-15-2015, 11:37 AM
No one in the GOP wants to hurt those who truly need assistance. This admin has made it much too easy to get welfare and assistance, causing it to be ripe with fraud. Of course, those who would be affected by the GOP rules to limit and emliminate fraud will be very vocal and slam the GOP as anti welfare. There is nothing wrongwith working to reduce the fraud in these government programs. People should be critical of those who want to keep dishonest people on the welfare rolls, not those trying to eliminate fraud.

This administration has done nothing to make it easier to get food stamps. In fact, it has reduced fraud. Additionally, why is the administration responsible for an economic collapse in 2008 that put millions out of work, needing food stamps? Try reading this, it pretty much negates every right wing talking point in this thread.

http://billmoyers.com/2013/10/08/six-myths-about-food-stamps/

Then, read this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3239

For example:


USDA has cut “trafficking” — the sale of SNAP benefits for cash, which violates federal law — by three-quarters over the past 15 years. Only 1 percent, or $1 in every $100 of SNAP benefits, is trafficked. USDA has also permanently disqualified thousands of retail stores from the program for not following federal requirements. In fiscal year 2012, USDA’s retailer fraud investigations resulted in 342 convictions and $57.7 million in recoveries. When cases of SNAP fraud are reported in the news, it is because the offenders have been caught, evidence that states and USDA are aggressively combating fraud.
In addition, SNAP now comes in the form of an electronic debit card –– like the ATM cards that most Americans carry in their wallets — which recipients can use in the supermarket checkout line only to purchase food. This has been a key tool to reduce trafficking. Sophisticated computer programs monitor SNAP transactions for patterns that may suggest abuse. Federal and state law enforcement agencies are then alerted and investigate. Retailers or SNAP recipients who defraud SNAP by trading their benefit cards for money or misrepresenting their circumstances face tough criminal penalties.

Common
02-15-2015, 11:39 AM
So tell us, blue, how will food stamps help those in poverty out of it?

Food stamps are not designed to help anyone out of poverty. They are designed to allow kids to go to school NOT hungry and feed the parent until they can get out of poverty.

Mac-7
02-15-2015, 11:51 AM
Food stamps are not designed to help anyone out of poverty. They are designed to allow kids to go to school NOT hungry and feed the parent until they can get out of poverty.

Food stamps are an income supplement

the single mom could buy food for the kids but then she couldn't afford to get her nails done

Chris
02-15-2015, 11:54 AM
Food stamps are not designed to help anyone out of poverty. They are designed to allow kids to go to school NOT hungry and feed the parent until they can get out of poverty.


So they do nothing to solve the problem of poverty.

domer76
02-15-2015, 02:52 PM
So they do nothing to solve the problem of poverty.
Education is the best solution to poverty

Captain Obvious
02-15-2015, 02:55 PM
Education is the best solution to poverty

Keep leading that horse to water...

There's nothing wrong with our education system. When impoverished Asians can manage to scrape up enough to travel here and get educated where it's basically free and ignored by our poor that says a lot.

domer76
02-15-2015, 03:09 PM
Keep leading that horse to water...

There's nothing wrong with our education system. When impoverished tAsians can manage to scrape up enough to travel here and get educated where it's basically free and ignored by our poor that says a lot.
I never said there was anything wrong with our education system. But, while we're there, we practice educational apartheid in this country. If you're mainly suburban, the schools are fine. Inner city schools are an entirely different matter.

However, if it wasn't obvious enough for you the first time, obvious, I'll repeat. Education is the best solution for poverty.

Bob
02-15-2015, 03:13 PM
I never said there was anything wrong with our education system. But, while we're there, we practice educational apartheid in this country. If you're mainly suburban, the schools are fine. Inner city schools are an entirely different matter.

However, if it wasn't obvious enough for you the first time, obvious, I'll repeat. Education is the best solution for poverty.

I think of getting out of poverty in the same way one thinks of learning to play the piano.

Goal setting is vital, planning is a must and practice.

Thinking right is the key to getting out of poverty. Do it enough and you get rich.

Captain Obvious
02-15-2015, 03:40 PM
I never said there was anything wrong with our education system. But, while we're there, we practice educational apartheid in this country. If you're mainly suburban, the schools are fine. Inner city schools are an entirely different matter.

However, if it wasn't obvious enough for you the first time, obvious, I'll repeat. Education is the best solution for poverty.

Ambition is the best solution for poverty.

TrueBlue
02-15-2015, 03:42 PM
Food stamps are not designed to help anyone out of poverty. They are designed to allow kids to go to school NOT hungry and feed the parent until they can get out of poverty.
That is correct. But what many right-wingers fail to understand is that those who are poor and who continue to be poor have more than likely grown up in poor surroundings, their own home may have been little more than a mere shack where many family members had to live without the things we take for granted such as CHCA, etc. I have known MANY people like that so I speak with good experience! Their situation has been such that they had hardly anything to eat and no money to speak of with which to buy necessities. They may have also had to do odd jobs of whatever type just to help the family out. Therefore, they did not have a good opportunity as the better-to-do kids do to go to school and get a good education so that later on in life they could have the things they didn't have growing up. That point must never be discounted when assessing why some people remain poor.

Yes, it is always great to go to school and graduate and then work part-time and continue to study but that is if you are financially able to. Let's face it, without a good education no one will hire you except to do work that no one else wants to do and how much money can that honestly get you? When you live in a broken down home and the family is very poor where it would be but a dream to even go to school to achieve the kind of things other kids have, then there is little chance for advancement unless you receive help from someone with means to help you out. In this humanitarian country there are philanthropists who could do more to help individuals instead of donating their money to large corporations so that they can be in charge of helping poor families out. That rarely happens. We have all heard the bad stories of how some places keep most of the money to buy things for their offices, etc. instead. That is not the way to help the poor. Much more needs to be done. The philanthropist who truly sees the poor and their situation and wants to really help them out needs to set up an office to talk to them and then write a check for their education and other necessities. Later, when those folks get back on their feet they can see about repaying them if that is what is expected of them. Many philanthropists, however, just donate their money to the cause since it is also a good tax write-off.

Common
02-15-2015, 04:01 PM
Food stamps are an income supplement

the single mom could buy food for the kids but then she couldn't afford to get her nails done

youre a tool mac

Common
02-15-2015, 04:03 PM
Ambition is the best solution for poverty.

Where do they direct that energy, walmart, mcdonalds for min wage and part time. THEY are the ones that are the most on foodstamps.

You people dont get it. All these corporations paying a non living wage and have the taxpayers supplement their payroll.

Until americans OPEN their eyes and see whats really going on were going to have guys like mac running everyone and everything down and blaming all the wrong people and the wrong things.

Captain Obvious
02-15-2015, 04:10 PM
Where do they direct that energy, walmart, mcdonalds for min wage and part time. THEY are the ones that are the most on foodstamps.

You people dont get it. All these corporations paying a non living wage and have the taxpayers supplement their payroll.

Until americans OPEN their eyes and see whats really going on were going to have guys like mac running everyone and everything down and blaming all the wrong people and the wrong things.

McDonalds pays a non-living wage for unskilled labor.

Unskilled labor doesn't "earn" a living wage.

You cannot consume more than you produce. Earning "living wages" for unskilled labor is consuming more than producing.

Want a living wage? Get ambitions, acquire a skill and/or an education and go out and earn it.

That's what I did, nobody gave me a fucking dime along the way either.

Captain Obvious
02-15-2015, 04:10 PM
...except my parents, they helped out nominally like buying us a fridge for our first house, little things like that. Didn't pay for my college though.

Chris
02-15-2015, 04:31 PM
Education is the best solution to poverty

Or work.

Chris
02-15-2015, 04:33 PM
That is correct. But what many right-wingers fail to understand is that those who are poor and who continue to be poor have more than likely grown up in poor surroundings, their own home may have been little more than a mere shack where many family members had to live without the things we take for granted such as CHCA, etc. I have known MANY people like that so I speak with good experience! Their situation has been such that they had hardly anything to eat and no money to speak of with which to buy necessities. They may have also had to do odd jobs of whatever type just to help the family out. Therefore, they did not have a good opportunity as the better-to-do kids do to go to school and get a good education so that later on in life they could have the things they didn't have growing up. That point must never be discounted when assessing why some people remain poor.

Yes, it is always great to go to school and graduate and then work part-time and continue to study but that is if you are financially able to. Let's face it, without a good education no one will hire you except to do work that no one else wants to do and how much money can that honestly get you? When you live in a broken down home and the family is very poor where it would be but a dream to even go to school to achieve the kind of things other kids have, then there is little chance for advancement unless you receive help from someone with means to help you out. In this humanitarian country there are philanthropists who could do more to help individuals instead of donating their money to large corporations so that they can be in charge of helping poor families out. That rarely happens. We have all heard the bad stories of how some places keep most of the money to buy things for their offices, etc. instead. That is not the way to help the poor. Much more needs to be done. The philanthropist who truly sees the poor and their situation and wants to really help them out needs to set up an office to talk to them and then write a check for their education and other necessities. Later, when those folks get back on their feet they can see about repaying them if that is what is expected of them. Many philanthropists, however, just donate their money to the cause since it is also a good tax write-off.


Blue, you seem to have two issues. One, a partisan issue with Republicans. That's petty, and trivializes the real issue of poverty. Two, an issue with life. Life requires us to act to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves. Society doesn't owe us that, we're not entitled to it, we need to act on it.

Chris
02-15-2015, 04:35 PM
Where do they direct that energy, walmart, mcdonalds for min wage and part time. THEY are the ones that are the most on foodstamps.

You people dont get it. All these corporations paying a non living wage and have the taxpayers supplement their payroll.

Until americans OPEN their eyes and see whats really going on were going to have guys like mac running everyone and everything down and blaming all the wrong people and the wrong things.


WHat's a living wage? Who determines that? Why are other obligated to pay it instead of me earning it? What is really going on? Why are you the only to see it?

Captain Obvious
02-15-2015, 04:40 PM
WHat's a living wage? Who determines that? Why are other obligated to pay it instead of me earning it? What is really going on? Why are you the only to see it?

The one related but still tangent concept is the vast consumption of wealth by the extreme minority in our economy.

Consumption - or retention, probably more precise.

I get that too, different topic but all things considered if someone's output is being subsidized, somebody has to pay for that subsidization, and at the end of the day the "living wage" earner is consuming more than they are producing with their unskilled labor.

Fundamentally an economy will collapse under that model.

domer76
02-15-2015, 04:41 PM
I think of getting out of poverty in the same way one thinks of learning to play the piano.

Goal setting is vital, planning is a must and practice.

Thinking right is the key to getting out of poverty. Do it enough and you get rich.
First, you have you have a piano with all the keys.

TrueBlue
02-15-2015, 05:00 PM
Blue, you seem to have two issues. One, a partisan issue with Republicans. That's petty, and trivializes the real issue of poverty. Two, an issue with life. Life requires us to act to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves. Society doesn't owe us that, we're not entitled to it, we need to act on it.
I reflect that as I see it. Your political party has traditionally been almost totally devoid of compassion for those who are poor and disadvantaged as compared to the Democratic Party. When people are legitimately down and out on their luck they need to receive help in order to get back on their feet and work if they are able to, which is something your party would be hard-pressed to act upon even after realizing that need.

It's ironic how you do always see a need to help big corporations though and many times go to their aid with financial help but cannot see fit to do it for needy individuals. And while true that Democrats also help the corporations to a certain extent, there can be absolutely no disagreement in that the Democrats are more compassionate towards the poor and needy in America than are the Republicans. Of that there can be absolutely no doubt. And you can argue all you like with your stories of how Democrats want to keep poor people poor, etc. but that is not the case. How many poor people would much rather have a job and make some good money as opposed to getting merely a hand-out that amounts to peanuts as they presently get with most government services? The answer is clear. If they had the means they would be educated and work in order to better themselves and their families but many times that is not possible.

Mr. Right
02-15-2015, 05:29 PM
Food stamps are not designed to help anyone out of poverty. They are designed to allow kids to go to school NOT hungry and feed the parent until they can get out of poverty.

Should there not be a time limit on benefits, or should it be a lifetime gig?

Chris
02-15-2015, 05:32 PM
The one related but still tangent concept is the vast consumption of wealth by the extreme minority in our economy.

Consumption - or retention, probably more precise.

I get that too, different topic but all things considered if someone's output is being subsidized, somebody has to pay for that subsidization, and at the end of the day the "living wage" earner is consuming more than they are producing with their unskilled labor.

Fundamentally an economy will collapse under that model.



A model built around pure materialistic consumption, propped up by fiat money and debt, cannot last long.

Chris
02-15-2015, 05:36 PM
I reflect that as I see it. Your political party has traditionally been almost totally devoid of compassion for those who are poor and disadvantaged as compared to the Democratic Party. When people are legitimately down and out on their luck they need to receive help in order to get back on their feet and work if they are able to, which is something your party would be hard-pressed to act upon even after realizing that need.

It's ironic how you do always see a need to help big corporations though and many times go to their aid with financial help but cannot see fit to do it for needy individuals. And while true that Democrats also help the corporations to a certain extent, there can be absolutely no disagreement in that the Democrats are more compassionate towards the poor and needy in America than are the Republicans. Of that there can be absolutely no doubt. And you can argue all you like with your stories of how Democrats want to keep poor people poor, etc. but that is not the case. How many poor people would much rather have a job and make some good money as opposed to getting merely a hand-out that amounts to peanuts as they presently get with most government services? The answer is clear. If they had the means they would be educated and work in order to better themselves and their families but many times that is not possible.


You reflect what as you see it? You don't see clearly when you say "Your political party" because I have no party, do not vote, am an anarchist. But that's exactly what I meant earlier about your main point simply being partisan contention without really caring about the actual issue. Neither Reps nor Dems are doing anything to get people out of poverty.

And this is another of your no seeing very clearly when you say "It's ironic how you do always see a need to help big corporations" as I am against government helping corporations unlike both Reps and Dems. Again you say nothing at all about the issue of poverty.

Bob
02-15-2015, 05:50 PM
I reflect that as I see it. Your political party has traditionally been almost totally devoid of compassion for those who are poor and disadvantaged as compared to the Democratic Party. When people are legitimately down and out on their luck they need to receive help in order to get back on their feet and work if they are able to, which is something your party would be hard-pressed to act upon even after realizing that need.

It's ironic how you do always see a need to help big corporations though and many times go to their aid with financial help but cannot see fit to do it for needy individuals. And while true that Democrats also help the corporations to a certain extent, there can be absolutely no disagreement in that the Democrats are more compassionate towards the poor and needy in America than are the Republicans. Of that there can be absolutely no doubt. And you can argue all you like with your stories of how Democrats want to keep poor people poor, etc. but that is not the case. How many poor people would much rather have a job and make some good money as opposed to getting merely a hand-out that amounts to peanuts as they presently get with most government services? The answer is clear. If they had the means they would be educated and work in order to better themselves and their families but many times that is not possible.

Not one fact in that commentary. But keep on pretending.

Mr. Right
02-15-2015, 05:58 PM
One aspect of the benefit programs of late make being on them so easy and automatic. Once on the program, one need only wait for the card to be replentished at the beginning of each month. There's zero incentive for anyone to ever leave the gravy train. If it's food needed for survival, let the "victim" visit a state store for their food. The way things are run currently, victims can and do easily trade their loaded cards for cash, drugs, or smokes. Private business can sell whatever they want to card holders... beer, cigs, whatever.
I remember a young ER doc talking about the woman patient who was seeking treatment there. She had a designer handbag, shoes, jeans, tattoos, an Iphone, and loads of gold jewelry. IOW, she had money for everything but her health. If the system can be gamed, it will be.

Howey
02-15-2015, 06:00 PM
Should there not be a time limit on benefits, or should it be a lifetime gig?

There is.

PolWatch
02-15-2015, 06:00 PM
Should there not be a time limit on benefits, or should it be a lifetime gig?

I believe all welfare programs should be limited. There should be required training, if necessary. If people can't find a job, then they should be required to work somewhere in the public sector...mowing the grass in public parks, etc. I think there should be regular re-evaluation of everyone on any program and if someone just will not work, they should be removed from the benefits. In cases where the jobs would pay less than the benefits, then I think an adjustment could be made....if not to the recipients, then to the employer to help make up the difference.

There are many possible things that could be done if people would quit just using the issue as political fodder. I have seen proposals from both parties that seemed reasonable but they were always defeated because of partisan politics.

Howey
02-15-2015, 06:02 PM
One aspect of the benefit programs of late make being on them so easy and automatic. Once on the program, one need only wait for the card to be replentished at the beginning of each month. There's zero incentive for anyone to ever leave the gravy train. If it's food needed for survival, let the "victim" visit a state store for their food. The way things are run currently, victims can and do easily trade their loaded cards for cash, drugs, or smokes. Private business can sell whatever they want to card holders... beer, cigs, whatever.
I remember a young ER doc talking about the woman patient who was seeking treatment there. She had a designer handbag, shoes, jeans, tattoos, an Iphone, and loads of gold jewelry. IOW, she had money for everything but her health. If the system can be gamed, it will be.

lol. How can you stuff so much wrong in one post? You've managed to list every single stereotype of food stamps there is. None of them are true.

Bob
02-15-2015, 06:05 PM
lol. How can you stuff so much wrong in one post? You've managed to list every single stereotype of food stamps there is. None of them are true.

He is right. Food stamps allow you to get cash. Not all stores give you cash, but you can get cash. Cash allows you to pay for anything.

Food Stamps are really a form of credit card. The state refills your account per month. To qualify, you need meet standards. They examine you closely.

Howey
02-15-2015, 06:06 PM
lol. How can you stuff so much wrong in one post? You've managed to list every single stereotype of food stamps there is. None of them are true.

Mods: Since our unenlightened members are incapable of clicking links, I'm going to post this in it's entirety. Please do not delete or shorten.

Myth #1: Food stamps are “growing exponentially” because of waste and fraud.

Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR) recently said, “Throughout the Obama presidency, we’ve seen the food stamp program grow exponentially because the government continues to turn a blind eye to a system fraught with abuse.”

Interestingly, a number of members of Congress disparage food stamps while receiving farm subsidies. Rep. Vicki Hartzler (R-MO) said, “This program is known for waste, fraud and abuse.” (Halter has received $516,000 in farm subsidies.) Kristi Noem (R-SD) said, “Loopholes and fraud …have led to federal spending on SNAP to increase 270 percent.” (Noem has received $503,000 in farm subsidies.) And Rep. Doug Lamalfa (R-CA) said that churches are more “accountable” at helping the poor than government. He said government has “failed” at helping the poor, so we should “retract” the program. (Lamalfa has received more than $1.7 million in farm subsidies.)

And other conservatives call President Obama the “food stamp president” because the program has grown since the recession hit.

Actually, the SNAP (food stamp) program is doing exactly what it is supposed to do and what a democracy would ask of it. It is helping people who need the help.

Last March the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) responded to the charges that the program’s growth is out of control, reporting that:

SNAP has responded effectively to the recession.
The recent growth in SNAP spending is temporary.
SNAP reaches a high share of people who are eligible.
SNAP payment accuracy is at all-time highs.
(Click through to CBPP for comprehensive details.)

What about “fraud?” Implicit in the accusation that the program is “growing exponentially” is the idea that the program is rife with fraud and waste. But the fraud and waste rate in the SNAP program is less than one percent. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the SNAP program. They say the fraud rate “has fallen significantly over the last two decades, from about four cents on the dollar in 1993 to about one cent in 2006-08 (most recent data available).”

Finally, the “error rate” which includes over-payments and payments to ineligible households is very low as well. According to Feeding America using USDA data, “SNAP error rates declined by 57 percent since fiscal year 2000, from 8.91 percent in fiscal year 2000 to a record low of 3.8 percent in fiscal year 2011.” Want to guess what the “compliance rate” with the IRS is? Last time they checked in 2006, $450 billion was left uncollected because of non-compliance. In one year. But conservatives aren’t complaining about that.

Myth #2: Cutting food stamps will make people get jobs because able-bodied people are getting food stamps instead of working.

Republicans call food stamps “welfare” and called the bill cutting food stamps the “Work Opportunity Act.” The idea is that after five years of recession and with 11.3 million people unemployed — 4.3 million out of work for 27 weeks or more — along with 7.9 million people working part-time but looking for full-time and another 2.3 million “marginally attached,” what the country needs is even more hungry people.

Actually, even though many on food stamps are children, elderly, disabled or temporarily unemployed, lots of people who use food stamps already are working. According to Feeding America “76 percent of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83 percent of all SNAP benefits.” According to the USDA, “Over 30 percent of SNAP households had earnings in 2011 and 41 percent of all SNAP participants lived in a household with earnings.”

One more thing, people don’t get very much food stamp money: four percent get only $16 a month. The average household gets $281 a month. The average individual gets about $133 a month.

Would you quit work or refuse a job for $133 a month which can only be used to buy food?

Myth #3: Food stamps make people “dependent.”

Rep. Mike Cramer (R-ND) recently served up an example of right-wing mythology, saying that food stamps are responsible for “a culture of permanent dependency.”

The right-wing Heritage Foundation and others constantly harp on this idea that democracies providing government services for people makes them “dependent” — as if people are squirrels who will lose the ability to find their own food in the wild.

This idea that government services make people “dependent” is an insult to people, democracy and civilization. Does the government service of bringing water to your house make you dependent on not taking a bucket down to the stream or something? Does a road make you dependent on not walking your donkey through the woods to town? Do police and courts make you “dependent” on not having good swordsmanship or carrying a large club?

If anyone is “dependent,” it is corporations that pay so little their employees have to come to the taxpayers for help buying food for their families.

Myth #4: Food stamps are about politicians “buying votes” with other people’s money.

Amplifying the “dependency” argument, conservatives disparage democracy by saying that elected officials “buy votes” by providing food to hungry people — and other government services.

The Christian Post has an example, in “Signing Up Seniors for Food Stamps Is Called ‘Buying Votes’ for Obama, Says Fox News Host.” The story reports that Fox News’ Stuart Varney says, “The AARP, huge support[er]s of President Obama, politically and financially, big supporters of Obamacare. And now they’re out there signing people up for food stamps. This is part of the buy-the-vote campaign. They’re really shifting America, changing what America really is,” he said.

Far-right Brietbart blasts, “HOW MANY VOTES WILL A 70 PERCENT INCREASE IN FOOD STAMPS BUY?” Similarly the right-wing Washington Times says, “Food stamps for votes.”

The idea of a democracy is that people vote for the things they want, everyone has an equal vote, everyone pitches in and everyone shares in the resulting prosperity. Government spending in a democracy is, by definition, ‘We the People’ doing things to make our lives better. But to conservatives, government doing things that make our lives better is just “buying votes.”

Myth #5: Food stamp recipients take drugs.

The Republican bill to cut food stamps also will “allow states to require food stamp recipients to be tested for drugs.”

Harold Pollack and Sheldon Danziger at The Washington Post look at this in “House Republicans want drug tests for food-stamp recipients. There’s no good reason for that.” They write, “Using 2011 data from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), we looked at the behaviors and circumstances of adults ages 18-64 whose households received SNAP. We examined whether respondents had used some illicit substance during the previous month or year. We then looked at whether they met screening criteria for abuse or dependence on alcohol or illicit drugs.”

They found a slightly higher illicit drug use among food stamp recipients. But if you correct for the demographics of people who will be on the program compared to the population at large, that slight risk gets even slighter.

So a few more people on food stamps use some drugs than people not on food stamps. Does this warrant testing everyone? Or is it about further humiliating people who aren’t rich? And why should smoking pot exclude someone from getting food stamps, anyway?

Myth #6: People use food stamps to buy cigarettes and alcohol.

Conservatives have widely circulated stories about people using food stamps to buy cigarettes and alcohol. The Blaze trumpets stories like, “THIS 65-YEAR-OLD CLERK WAS FIRED FOR REFUSING TO SELL CIGARETTES TO A FOOD STAMP CUSTOMER” and outlets like Fox echo it. These kinds of stories are everywhere in the right-wing echo chamber.

Here are the facts: According to USDA, households may use food stamps to buy foods, such as breads and cereals; fruits and vegetables; meats, fish and poultry; and dairy products. Also they can buy seeds and plants which produce food to eat. (In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.)

Households may not use food stamps to buy beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco; pet foods; soaps, paper products; household supplies; vitamins and medicines; food that will be eaten in the store; hot foods.

So here we are in the worst economy in many decades. It’s more than difficult to find a job. Wages are actually falling for 95 percent of us. We have the highest income and wealth inequality since just before the depression.

Meanwhile, according to the National Priorities Project the government is handing over $1 trillion a year to the wealthiest and corporations in the form of “tax expenditures.” Then there is that $450 billion a year that the IRS just fails to collect. The corporate foreign-income tax “deferral” has corporations holding as much as $2 trillion of taxable income outside the country. And hedge-fund managers making into the billions each year still get their Romney-style tax breaks.

Yet Republicans are picking on the poorest citizens, lying and smearing them as lazy druggies and blaming them for the high unemployment by saying that $133 a month is keeping them from bothering to look for a job. Why do we put up with this?

TrueBlue
02-15-2015, 06:12 PM
Not one fact in that commentary. But keep on pretending.
It is filled with facts that you don't want to see or acknowledge as you continue to be in denial.

Chris
02-15-2015, 06:16 PM
Should there not be a time limit on benefits, or should it be a lifetime gig?


There is.


I believe all welfare programs should be limited. There should be required training, if necessary. If people can't find a job, then they should be required to work somewhere in the public sector...mowing the grass in public parks, etc. I think there should be regular re-evaluation of everyone on any program and if someone just will not work, they should be removed from the benefits. In cases where the jobs would pay less than the benefits, then I think an adjustment could be made....if not to the recipients, then to the employer to help make up the difference.

There are many possible things that could be done if people would quit just using the issue as political fodder. I have seen proposals from both parties that seemed reasonable but they were always defeated because of partisan politics.



But then the implied purpose is not merely feeding people but getting them out of poverty. But food stamp nor welfare have accomplished that. The War on Poverty was declared at around a 15% poverty rate and we're still there or higher.

gamewell45
02-15-2015, 06:16 PM
Typical dpuchebag move by republicans, "lets starve the poor folks".

Crime rates will go up since people who are hungry will likely commit crimes to buy food to live off of.

Chris
02-15-2015, 06:18 PM
Mods: Since our unenlightened members are incapable of clicking links, I'm going to post this in it's entirety. Please do not delete or shorten.

Myth #1: Food stamps are “growing exponentially” because of waste and fraud.

Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR) recently said, “Throughout the Obama presidency, we’ve seen the food stamp program grow exponentially because the government continues to turn a blind eye to a system fraught with abuse.”

Interestingly, a number of members of Congress disparage food stamps while receiving farm subsidies. Rep. Vicki Hartzler (R-MO) said, “This program is known for waste, fraud and abuse.” (Halter has received $516,000 in farm subsidies.) Kristi Noem (R-SD) said, “Loopholes and fraud …have led to federal spending on SNAP to increase 270 percent.” (Noem has received $503,000 in farm subsidies.) And Rep. Doug Lamalfa (R-CA) said that churches are more “accountable” at helping the poor than government. He said government has “failed” at helping the poor, so we should “retract” the program. (Lamalfa has received more than $1.7 million in farm subsidies.)

And other conservatives call President Obama the “food stamp president” because the program has grown since the recession hit.

Actually, the SNAP (food stamp) program is doing exactly what it is supposed to do and what a democracy would ask of it. It is helping people who need the help.

Last March the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) responded to the charges that the program’s growth is out of control, reporting that:

SNAP has responded effectively to the recession.
The recent growth in SNAP spending is temporary.
SNAP reaches a high share of people who are eligible.
SNAP payment accuracy is at all-time highs.
(Click through to CBPP for comprehensive details.)

What about “fraud?” Implicit in the accusation that the program is “growing exponentially” is the idea that the program is rife with fraud and waste. But the fraud and waste rate in the SNAP program is less than one percent. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the SNAP program. They say the fraud rate “has fallen significantly over the last two decades, from about four cents on the dollar in 1993 to about one cent in 2006-08 (most recent data available).”

Finally, the “error rate” which includes over-payments and payments to ineligible households is very low as well. According to Feeding America using USDA data, “SNAP error rates declined by 57 percent since fiscal year 2000, from 8.91 percent in fiscal year 2000 to a record low of 3.8 percent in fiscal year 2011.” Want to guess what the “compliance rate” with the IRS is? Last time they checked in 2006, $450 billion was left uncollected because of non-compliance. In one year. But conservatives aren’t complaining about that.

Myth #2: Cutting food stamps will make people get jobs because able-bodied people are getting food stamps instead of working.

Republicans call food stamps “welfare” and called the bill cutting food stamps the “Work Opportunity Act.” The idea is that after five years of recession and with 11.3 million people unemployed — 4.3 million out of work for 27 weeks or more — along with 7.9 million people working part-time but looking for full-time and another 2.3 million “marginally attached,” what the country needs is even more hungry people.

Actually, even though many on food stamps are children, elderly, disabled or temporarily unemployed, lots of people who use food stamps already are working. According to Feeding America “76 percent of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83 percent of all SNAP benefits.” According to the USDA, “Over 30 percent of SNAP households had earnings in 2011 and 41 percent of all SNAP participants lived in a household with earnings.”

One more thing, people don’t get very much food stamp money: four percent get only $16 a month. The average household gets $281 a month. The average individual gets about $133 a month.

Would you quit work or refuse a job for $133 a month which can only be used to buy food?

Myth #3: Food stamps make people “dependent.”

Rep. Mike Cramer (R-ND) recently served up an example of right-wing mythology, saying that food stamps are responsible for “a culture of permanent dependency.”

The right-wing Heritage Foundation and others constantly harp on this idea that democracies providing government services for people makes them “dependent” — as if people are squirrels who will lose the ability to find their own food in the wild.

This idea that government services make people “dependent” is an insult to people, democracy and civilization. Does the government service of bringing water to your house make you dependent on not taking a bucket down to the stream or something? Does a road make you dependent on not walking your donkey through the woods to town? Do police and courts make you “dependent” on not having good swordsmanship or carrying a large club?

If anyone is “dependent,” it is corporations that pay so little their employees have to come to the taxpayers for help buying food for their families.

Myth #4: Food stamps are about politicians “buying votes” with other people’s money.

Amplifying the “dependency” argument, conservatives disparage democracy by saying that elected officials “buy votes” by providing food to hungry people — and other government services.

The Christian Post has an example, in “Signing Up Seniors for Food Stamps Is Called ‘Buying Votes’ for Obama, Says Fox News Host.” The story reports that Fox News’ Stuart Varney says, “The AARP, huge support[er]s of President Obama, politically and financially, big supporters of Obamacare. And now they’re out there signing people up for food stamps. This is part of the buy-the-vote campaign. They’re really shifting America, changing what America really is,” he said.

Far-right Brietbart blasts, “HOW MANY VOTES WILL A 70 PERCENT INCREASE IN FOOD STAMPS BUY?” Similarly the right-wing Washington Times says, “Food stamps for votes.”

The idea of a democracy is that people vote for the things they want, everyone has an equal vote, everyone pitches in and everyone shares in the resulting prosperity. Government spending in a democracy is, by definition, ‘We the People’ doing things to make our lives better. But to conservatives, government doing things that make our lives better is just “buying votes.”

Myth #5: Food stamp recipients take drugs.

The Republican bill to cut food stamps also will “allow states to require food stamp recipients to be tested for drugs.”

Harold Pollack and Sheldon Danziger at The Washington Post look at this in “House Republicans want drug tests for food-stamp recipients. There’s no good reason for that.” They write, “Using 2011 data from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), we looked at the behaviors and circumstances of adults ages 18-64 whose households received SNAP. We examined whether respondents had used some illicit substance during the previous month or year. We then looked at whether they met screening criteria for abuse or dependence on alcohol or illicit drugs.”

They found a slightly higher illicit drug use among food stamp recipients. But if you correct for the demographics of people who will be on the program compared to the population at large, that slight risk gets even slighter.

So a few more people on food stamps use some drugs than people not on food stamps. Does this warrant testing everyone? Or is it about further humiliating people who aren’t rich? And why should smoking pot exclude someone from getting food stamps, anyway?

Myth #6: People use food stamps to buy cigarettes and alcohol.

Conservatives have widely circulated stories about people using food stamps to buy cigarettes and alcohol. The Blaze trumpets stories like, “THIS 65-YEAR-OLD CLERK WAS FIRED FOR REFUSING TO SELL CIGARETTES TO A FOOD STAMP CUSTOMER” and outlets like Fox echo it. These kinds of stories are everywhere in the right-wing echo chamber.

Here are the facts: According to USDA, households may use food stamps to buy foods, such as breads and cereals; fruits and vegetables; meats, fish and poultry; and dairy products. Also they can buy seeds and plants which produce food to eat. (In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.)

Households may not use food stamps to buy beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco; pet foods; soaps, paper products; household supplies; vitamins and medicines; food that will be eaten in the store; hot foods.

So here we are in the worst economy in many decades. It’s more than difficult to find a job. Wages are actually falling for 95 percent of us. We have the highest income and wealth inequality since just before the depression.

Meanwhile, according to the National Priorities Project the government is handing over $1 trillion a year to the wealthiest and corporations in the form of “tax expenditures.” Then there is that $450 billion a year that the IRS just fails to collect. The corporate foreign-income tax “deferral” has corporations holding as much as $2 trillion of taxable income outside the country. And hedge-fund managers making into the billions each year still get their Romney-style tax breaks.

Yet Republicans are picking on the poorest citizens, lying and smearing them as lazy druggies and blaming them for the high unemployment by saying that $133 a month is keeping them from bothering to look for a job. Why do we put up with this?



That's a lot of opinion, not facts.

And, like blue, it's aimed at partisan bickering rather than addressing the issue of poverty.

Howey
02-15-2015, 06:27 PM
That's a lot of opinion, not facts.

And, like blue, it's aimed at partisan bickering rather than addressing the issue of poverty.

Huh? Every one of those items have been backed by hard cold facts and legitimate sources?

Are you able to prove any wrong?

TrueBlue
02-15-2015, 06:54 PM
That's a lot of opinion, not facts.

And, like blue, it's aimed at partisan bickering rather than addressing the issue of poverty.
When you've been whipped by the facts your only defense: Continue To Be In Denial.

Cigar
02-15-2015, 07:35 PM
And how's that @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) ?? no one on food stamps ??

or everyone on food stamps ??

Boy, it must hurt something awful :laugh:

Chris
02-15-2015, 07:48 PM
Huh? Every one of those items have been backed by hard cold facts and legitimate sources?

Are you able to prove any wrong?


Yes, the facts of partisan bickering.

Chris
02-15-2015, 07:50 PM
When you've been whipped by the facts your only defense: Continue To Be In Denial.


You're funny in your partisanship. Beat those Reps up! While they beat you up! That's solves things now doesn't it.

TrueBlue
02-15-2015, 07:51 PM
Yes, the facts of partisan bickering.
And what do you and your side produce each time you post if not partisan bickering.

TrueBlue
02-15-2015, 07:52 PM
You're funny in your partisanship. Beat those Reps up! While they beat you up! That's solves things now doesn't it.
An Eye For An Eye, Bubba.

Chris
02-15-2015, 07:58 PM
And what do you and your side produce each time you post if not partisan bickering.

My side? Have you not read me say I am not a Republican, I have no party, I do not vote, I am an anarchist? What is with you, are you so blinded by your partisanship that the whole world looks that way?

Chris
02-15-2015, 07:59 PM
An Eye For An Eye, Bubba.


You're starting to sound somewhat delusional.

TrueBlue
02-15-2015, 08:00 PM
You're starting to sound somewhat delusional.
No, it's called Biblical.

Captain Obvious
02-15-2015, 08:02 PM
No, it's called Biblical.

Synonymous

Bob
02-15-2015, 08:03 PM
My side? Have you not read me say I am not a Republican, I have no party, I do not vote, I am an anarchist? What is with you, are you so blinded by your partisanship that the whole world looks that way?
Chris Did you read Bills book? If you reply, mention me so I know.

TrueBlue
02-15-2015, 08:06 PM
My side? Have you not read me say I am not a Republican, I have no party, I do not vote, I am an anarchist? What is with you, are you so blinded by your partisanship that the whole world looks that way?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Thus, "By their fruits you shall know them".

Chris
02-15-2015, 08:09 PM
Chris Did you read Bills book? If you reply, mention me so I know.

You keep asking me that. Who's Bill? Clinton?

Chris
02-15-2015, 08:09 PM
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Thus, "By their fruits you shall know them".

Delusional.

Howey
02-15-2015, 08:17 PM
He is right. Food stamps allow you to get cash. Not all stores give you cash, but you can get cash. Cash allows you to pay for anything.

Food Stamps are really a form of credit card. The state refills your account per month. To qualify, you need meet standards. They examine you closely.

*sigh*

No, Bob. You cannot get cash from food stamps.. You get food with food stamps.

Captain Obvious
02-15-2015, 08:18 PM
*sigh*

No, @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013). You cannot get cash from food stamps.. You get food with food stamps.

He's thinking about cash stamps.

Chris
02-15-2015, 08:21 PM
*sigh*

No, Bob. You cannot get cash from food stamps.. You get food with food stamps.



Craigslist makes turning food stamps into cash a SNAP (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/22/craigslist-makes-turning-food-stamps-into-cash-snap/).

Chris
02-15-2015, 08:22 PM
Coming Soon? Pot: Colorado became the first state to legalize the use of recreational marijuana, and they also might become the first state to have tax payer funded pot smoking. A Colorado Pot Shop called Rite Greens has already taken the steps to officially accept EBT.

@ 11 Things You Didn’t Know You Could Buy With Food Stamps (http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/11-things-you-didnt-know-you-could-buy-with-food-stamps/)

Incidently, #9 on that list:


Cold hard cash: Some people are in the business of selling their EBT benefits for cash. Craigslist has been a great conduit for these “creative entrepreneurs.”

Captain Obvious
02-15-2015, 08:24 PM
@ 11 Things You Didn’t Know You Could Buy With Food Stamps (http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/11-things-you-didnt-know-you-could-buy-with-food-stamps/)

Incidently, #9 on that list:

You can also get hookers on Craigslist, doesn't make it legit.

Howey
02-15-2015, 08:28 PM
Craigslist makes turning food stamps into cash a SNAP (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/22/craigslist-makes-turning-food-stamps-into-cash-snap/).

There's fraud in everything. As I pointed out earlier, food stamp fraud is at an all time low.

Howey
02-15-2015, 08:29 PM
The greatest majority of food stamp benefits go to children. I don't see them advertising on Craigslist to sell them.

Howey
02-15-2015, 08:32 PM
He's thinking about cash stamps.

Food stamps is a misnomer. Now it's the EBT card, for electronic benefits. You no longer get change back. The food purchase is automatically deducted. TANF is also available through the card.

The level of ignorance of some ppl is mind boggling.

Chris
02-15-2015, 08:33 PM
You can also get hookers on Craigslist, doesn't make it legit.

Of course not.

Bob
02-15-2015, 08:40 PM
*sigh*

No, @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013). You cannot get cash from food stamps.. You get food with food stamps.

No, you can get cash. Howey

You can't get all of it in cash, but here in CA you can get cash.

Captain Obvious
02-15-2015, 08:41 PM
No, you can get cash. @Howey (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=387)

You can't get all of it in cash, but here in CA you can get cash.

Hence why CA is going down the shitter fast.

Bob
02-15-2015, 08:41 PM
Food stamps is a misnomer. Now it's the EBT card, for electronic benefits. You no longer get change back. The food purchase is automatically deducted. TANF is also available through the card.

The level of ignorance of some ppl is mind boggling.

While it is the EBT card, it allows cash at certain locations. You get notified how much cash you can get.

My level of experience is top rated.

Bob
02-15-2015, 08:42 PM
Hence why CA is going down the shitter fast.

Maybe so.

Bob
02-15-2015, 08:43 PM
The greatest majority of food stamp benefits go to children. I don't see them advertising on Craigslist to sell them.

Over a certain age and not over the maximum income, one can apply for the EBT card and use it. Medicade also takes a different application and approval. (here in CA it is called Medi-cal)

lynn
02-15-2015, 09:19 PM
We have almost 50% of the births in this country are born to women on Medicaid every year. There are almost 1/2 of the population of children under eighteen that are on Medicaid. How is the GOP going to restrict this group from getting their food stamps without hurting those children?

People say put them to work so how is that going to happen when our economy can't support the increasing population as it is now in getting them employed? How long can we continue to support women getting pregnant without any means to take care of that child on their own?

These are serious issues and nobody seems to have any ideas of how to solve them.

Captain Obvious
02-15-2015, 09:28 PM
We have almost 50% of the births in this country are born to women on Medicaid every year. There are almost 1/2 of the population of children under eighteen that are on Medicaid. How is the GOP going to restrict this group from getting their food stamps without hurting those children?

People say put them to work so how is that going to happen when our economy can't support the increasing population as it is now in getting them employed? How long can we continue to support women getting pregnant without any means to take care of that child on their own?

These are serious issues and nobody seems to have any ideas of how to solve them.

Right now "pay them" is the first choice of solutions.

Max Rockatansky
02-15-2015, 10:49 PM
We have almost 50% of the births in this country are born to women on Medicaid every year. There are almost 1/2 of the population of children under eighteen that are on Medicaid. How is the GOP going to restrict this group from getting their food stamps without hurting those children?...

The long-term solution is for the RNC (I refuse to call them the GOP since they haven't been since the 1980s) to rethink their position on sex education in high school, supporting cheap (not free) contraceptives and, of course, abortion. Again, not free, but at cost.

Dr. Who
02-16-2015, 01:40 AM
Our poor would be rich most places around the world.

I see two problems. One is welfare that disincentivizes against pursuit of happiness. Two is government regulations and red tape against the same pursuit. Just one example: It doesn't cost all that much to outfit a car as a taxi but to get a taxi licence in many places costs: In New York, taxi medallions have topped $1 million. In Boston, $700,000. In Philadelphia, $400,000. In Miami, $300,000. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/20/taxi-medallions-have-been-the-best-investment-in-america-for-years-now-uber-may-be-changing-that/)
Based on income alone they would be rich, but the cost of survival is relative. Since you are not comparing apples to apples, you don't take into consideration the fact that in many parts of the country, people need protection against the cold. Heating costs money, so accommodation is expensive. For the same reason, food is expensive, because it has to be transported from warmer climes. People are not allowed to cobble together shelter in America as they can in the third world, so housing costs are higher relative to income. The American poor can be virtually just as poor, in terms of being able to feed and clothe themselves adequately, but they have better accommodations because of by-laws and regulations. By the same token most apartment dwellers can't raise chickens, or plant a garden to supplement their nutritional needs. They are not as badly off as people living in drought plagued parts of Africa, or some of the other hell holes of the third world, but should that even be a legitimate comparison?

Chris
02-16-2015, 10:01 AM
Based on income alone they would be rich, but the cost of survival is relative. Since you are not comparing apples to apples, you don't take into consideration the fact that in many parts of the country, people need protection against the cold. Heating costs money, so accommodation is expensive. For the same reason, food is expensive, because it has to be transported from warmer climes. People are not allowed to cobble together shelter in America as they can in the third world, so housing costs are higher relative to income. The American poor can be virtually just as poor, in terms of being able to feed and clothe themselves adequately, but they have better accommodations because of by-laws and regulations. By the same token most apartment dwellers can't raise chickens, or plant a garden to supplement their nutritional needs. They are not as badly off as people living in drought plagued parts of Africa, or some of the other hell holes of the third world, but should that even be a legitimate comparison?


The poor in the US have it better than the poor elsewhere even in that regard. For, for example, may cost a bit more, but the quality is better, the quantity greater, and the choices freer. Even you say so: "They are not as badly off as people living in drought plagued parts of Africa, or some of the other hell holes of the third world...."


...but should that even be a legitimate comparison?

Yes.


And you missed my point altogether.

Mac-7
02-16-2015, 10:15 AM
The long-term solution is for the RNC (I refuse to call them the GOP since they haven't been since the 1980s) to rethink their position on sex education in high school, supporting cheap (not free) contraceptives and, of course, abortion. Again, not free, but at cost.

Girls who want to be single moms on welfare would not use the contraceptives if you gave it too them.

Crepitus
02-16-2015, 12:30 PM
Crime rates will go up since people who are hungry will likely commit crimes to buy food to live off of.
Entirely possible.

Max Rockatansky
02-16-2015, 07:40 PM
Girls who want to be single moms on welfare would not use the contraceptives if you gave it too them.

How much do you think single moms receive for their child?

http://www.welfareinfo.org/payments/
However, a basic average guideline for the food stamp program will show that an average family of 4 can expect an amount up to $500 per month for food stamps. This figure will greatly vary based on the age of the family members and medical needs. A single person household will show an expected average of up to $200 per month. Again, these figures are averages and not state specific.

Cash allowance benefits for financial assistance will also be state regulated and allowances paid will also vary based on different criteria. However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300.

These allowance benefits would be separate from any additional welfare benefits received such as child care, medical or utility assistance.

Even as you look at these welfare amounts, it is not surprising that the current allowance benefits seldom if ever make ends meet for the recipient. The institutionalized program was set up to be an offset measure for those in need, not a complete replacement of income and benefits. The downside to this is that as the economy continues to take a nosedive, so does the available means for those living with minimal income. A family of 4 cannot live on $900 a month.

Additionally, criminal activities meant to defraud the SRS program greatly limit the available funds for those who truly need and make the regulations stricter, in some cases too strict, eliminating the benefits for those who truly need it.

Mac-7
02-17-2015, 05:09 AM
How much do you think single moms receive for their child?



Not very much.

The exact numbers vary from state to state but it is good enough to satisfy the bottom feeders of our society.

Max Rockatansky
02-17-2015, 09:04 AM
Not very much.

The exact numbers vary from state to state but it is good enough to satisfy the bottom feeders of our society.

So what happens to those "bottom feeders" and their children when they are cut off from all assistance? This?

http://www.quarterly-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/children_affected_by_famine_in_berdyansk_ukraine_-_1922.jpg
https://loosendsdotme.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/childrenoncement_warsaw-02.jpg?w=584&h=432
http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/53242202-group-of-starving-polish-children-in-the-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=OCUJ5gVf7YdJQI2Xhkc2QPt6m8pgsjM62R%2FdfWV7tfot0D ezHT8vCcP98Rws%2B%2Bl9

Mac-7
02-17-2015, 09:09 AM
So what happens to those "bottom feeders" and their children when they are cut off from all assistance? This?

http://www.quarterly-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/children_affected_by_famine_in_berdyansk_ukraine_-_1922.jpg
https://loosendsdotme.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/childrenoncement_warsaw-02.jpg?w=584&h=432
http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/53242202-group-of-starving-polish-children-in-the-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=OCUJ5gVf7YdJQI2Xhkc2QPt6m8pgsjM62R%2FdfWV7tfot0D ezHT8vCcP98Rws%2B%2Bl9

I don't know the source of those pictures.

They look pretty old and could be from the a Great Depression or even a foreign refugee camp after WWII.

In America we employ up yo 20 million illegal aliens who come to this country and do not starve in the streets.

In fact the Mexicans are reported to send $25 billion a year back home.

So I think most Americans could manage to feed themselves without welfare if they try.

Captain Obvious
02-17-2015, 09:13 AM
So what happens to those "bottom feeders" and their children when they are cut off from all assistance? This?

http://www.quarterly-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/children_affected_by_famine_in_berdyansk_ukraine_-_1922.jpg
https://loosendsdotme.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/childrenoncement_warsaw-02.jpg?w=584&h=432
http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/53242202-group-of-starving-polish-children-in-the-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=OCUJ5gVf7YdJQI2Xhkc2QPt6m8pgsjM62R%2FdfWV7tfot0D ezHT8vCcP98Rws%2B%2Bl9

Begging hands and bleeding hearts...

I'm all for charity, but responsible and not enabling charity.

Most our charity and assistance programs are enabling, which is why there's a sea of begging hands out there.

I don't support enabling. The federal gubmint does.

Mac-7
02-17-2015, 09:16 AM
Begging hands and bleeding hearts...

I'm all for charity, but responsible and not enabling charity.

Most our charity and assistance programs are enabling, which is why there's a sea of begging hands out there.

I don't support enabling. The federal gubmint does.

Agreed.

Chris
02-17-2015, 09:40 AM
So what happens to those "bottom feeders" and their children when they are cut off from all assistance? This?

http://www.quarterly-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/children_affected_by_famine_in_berdyansk_ukraine_-_1922.jpg
https://loosendsdotme.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/childrenoncement_warsaw-02.jpg?w=584&h=432
http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/53242202-group-of-starving-polish-children-in-the-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=OCUJ5gVf7YdJQI2Xhkc2QPt6m8pgsjM62R%2FdfWV7tfot0D ezHT8vCcP98Rws%2B%2Bl9



What caused that?

Max Rockatansky
02-17-2015, 08:32 PM
I don't know the source of those pictures.

They look pretty old and could be from the a Great Depression or even a foreign refugee camp after WWII.

In America we employ up yo 20 million illegal aliens who come to this country and do not starve in the streets.

In fact the Mexicans are reported to send $25 billion a year back home.

So I think most Americans could manage to feed themselves without welfare if they try.

Quit backpedaling. You said cut all welfare to mothers and children, not just cut welfare to illegals. Now either man up and admit you were wrong or stop stand by your words that you'd rather see poor Americans starving in the streets rather than support a government welfare system.

Max Rockatansky
02-17-2015, 08:40 PM
Begging hands and bleeding hearts...

I'm all for charity, but responsible and not enabling charity.

Most our charity and assistance programs are enabling, which is why there's a sea of begging hands out there.

I don't support enabling. The federal gubmint does.

Agreed on enabling. As stated several times in the past, I fully support the superiority of teaching someone to fish over simply giving them a fish. However, I understand that the unable; the infirm, the elderly and the young do not have the ability to fish and, therefore, the human thing to do is to help them.

Mac-7
02-17-2015, 08:51 PM
Quit backpedaling. You said cut all welfare to mothers and children, not just cut welfare to illegals. Now either man up and admit you were wrong or stop stand by your words that you'd rather see poor Americans starving in the streets rather than support a government welfare system.

I do want to cut welfare to American citizens.

That has been my point all along.

because I don't think most people will starve on the streets.

They will have to do the work that illegals are doing now.

Max Rockatansky
02-17-2015, 08:53 PM
I do want to cut welfare to American citizens.

That has been my point all along.
So why the derailment about the fucking Mexicans? Just admit you wouldn't mind pictures of American children starving in the streets because you believe it's for the greater good.

http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/child-hunger/child-hunger-fact-sheet.html

Food Insecurity

15.8 million children lived in food-insecure households in 2012.[i]
20 percent or more of the child population in 37 states and D.C. lived in food-insecure households in 2012, according to the most recent data available. New Mexico (29%) and Mississippi (29%) had the highest rates of children in households without consistent access to food. [ii]
In 2012, the top five states with the highest rate of food-insecure children under 18 were New Mexico, Mississippi, Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada.[iii]
In 2012, the top five states with the lowest rate of food-insecure children under 18 were North Dakota, Minnesota, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.[iv]
Charitable Food Assistance

Twelve million children are estimated to be served by Feeding America, over 3.5 million of which are ages 5 and under.
Proper nutrition is vital to the growth and development of children. While almost all (94%) of client households with school-aged children (ages 5-18) report participating in the National School Lunch Program, only 46 percent report participating in the School Breakfast Program. [vi]
Nearly one in four (24%) client households with children report participation in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). [vii]
Poverty Statistics


In 2013, 14.7 million or approximately 20 percent of children in the U.S. lived in poverty. [viii]
Participation in Federal Nutrition Programs

In fiscal year 2012, 45 percent of all SNAP participants were children under age 18.[ix]
During the 2013 federal fiscal year, more than 21.5 million low-income children received free or reduced-price meals daily through the National School Lunch Program. [x]Unfortunately, in 2013 less than 2.5 million children participated daily in the Summer Food Service Program. [xi]

Mac-7
02-17-2015, 08:54 PM
So why the derailment about the $#@!ing Mexicans? Just admit you wouldn't mind pictures of American children starving in the streets because you believe it's for the greater good.

because I don't think most people will starve on the streets.


They will have to do the work that illegals are doing now.

Max Rockatansky
02-17-2015, 08:59 PM
because I don't think most people will starve on the streets.


They will have to do the work that illegals are doing now.

So you also favor lowing the working age to 5? Little bastards need to earn their keep, right?

You'd make a great Charles Dickens character.

Mac-7
02-17-2015, 09:06 PM
So you also favor lowing the working age to 5? Little $#@!s need to earn their keep, right?

You'd make a great Charles Dickens character.

Only if you think adults on welfare are such monsters that they would let their children starve rather than getting a job and buying food with the money they earn.

Max Rockatansky
02-17-2015, 09:33 PM
Only if you think adults on welfare are such monsters that they would let their children starve rather than getting a job and buying food with the money they earn.
Some are such monsters. Some are just stupid. You are free to blame the children for the sins of their parents.

Let them eat cake, right?

Mac-7
02-17-2015, 09:42 PM
Some are such monsters. Some are just stupid. You are free to blame the children for the sins of their parents.

Let them eat cake, right?

Yes there was an example of that in Chicago a few years ago.

Junkie welfare moms were spending every dime on drugs and literally starving their children who were locked up in an apartment.

Giving them the government money did not save the children from starvation.

But I think most welfare bums are just lazy and not really monsters that would starve their children.

Max Rockatansky
02-17-2015, 10:08 PM
Yes there was an example of that in Chicago a few years ago.

Junkie welfare moms were spending every dime on drugs and literally starving their children who were locked up in an apartment.

Giving them the government money did not save the children from starvation.

But I think most welfare bums are just lazy and not really monsters that would starve their children.
Thanks for confirming you think starving the children to punish their monster parents is the right thing to do.

You're deluding yourself to think that people living in poverty would get a job if their food stamps were cut and that the only they are not working is because they are "lazy and shiftless".

Dr. Who
02-17-2015, 11:53 PM
because I don't think most people will starve on the streets.


They will have to do the work that illegals are doing now.
It's not a one for one situation. Illegals work for subsistence wages. They live in illegal circumstances - 20 or more to an apartment or house. They live under the radar. They rent from criminals and are employed by criminals. Do you suggest that citizens rent from criminals and gain employment from criminals? Do you support the criminals taking advantage of people with no papers and thus no right to say I can't live on this but I have no way of protesting? Do you suggest that citizens should work 12 hour days and be left with not enough to pay for accommodation, unless they live like illegals, which is also against the law, and not enough to actually feed themselves? Do you really want that kind of society?

Redrose
02-18-2015, 12:10 AM
Nobody wants to hurt poor people who truly need assistance. The fraud needs to be eliminated. It's help to get people through difficult times, often beyond their control. It is being abused by some who have chosen to take advantage of a lax system and have an easier lifestyle. They are stealing from me and you and all the poor who need help.

Too many have bilked the system because of very liberal, relaxed requirements. Welfare income and food stamps have been manipulated to buy booze, drugs, cigarettes, jewelry, designer clothing, lotto tickets and hookers......not food and basic items.

Some have scammed the system to collect welfare and food stamps even when they had a significant income that was off the books. Tightening the rules to eliminate scammers will strengthen the welfare system for those who really need the assistance.

If you can't understand that, then you are beyond help.

Mac-7
02-18-2015, 03:02 AM
Thanks for confirming you think starving the children to punish their monster parents is the right thing to do.

And thank you for confirming that words have no meaning to you.

Reread post #169 again.



You're deluding yourself to think that people living in poverty would get a job if their food stamps were cut and that the only they are not working is because they are "lazy and shiftless".

why wouldn't they break down and go to work?

Are they that lazy or just stupid?

Mac-7
02-18-2015, 03:08 AM
It's not a one for one situation. Illegals work for subsistence wages. They live in illegal circumstances - 20 or more to an apartment or house. They live under the radar. They rent from criminals and are employed by criminals. Do you suggest that citizens rent from criminals and gain employment from criminals? Do you support the criminals taking advantage of people with no papers and thus no right to say I can't live on this but I have no way of protesting? Do you suggest that citizens should work 12 hour days and be left with not enough to pay for accommodation, unless they live like illegals, which is also against the law, and not enough to actually feed themselves? Do you really want that kind of society?

As you say illegals are often but not always living in appalling conditions.

So for libs its ok for 25 million humans to live that way as long as American citizens do no have to because they are supplied with welfare?

I doubt that and think the compassionates have not really thought the issue through.

Better that illegals be deported and new illegals stopped at the border while at the same time forcing Americans off welfare and into the work-for-pay economy.

Max Rockatansky
02-18-2015, 06:51 AM
Nobody wants to hurt poor people who truly need assistance. The fraud needs to be eliminated. ...
Disagreed on your first sentence since Mac-7 is quit clear he wants to cut off all assistance.

Agreed the fraud needs to be eliminated. That isn't without it's problems. Like Obamacare, the more paperwork something requires, the less likely those who need it will get it.

because I don't think most people will starve on the streets.

They will have to do the work that illegals are doing now.
.....the poor have to be doing something wrong
.....its the reason that no matter how much we spend welfare the poor never go away
Food stamps are an income supplement

the single mom could buy food for the kids but then she couldn't afford to get her nails doneTranslation: Cut food stamps so mom can't do her nails.

Mac-7
02-18-2015, 07:58 AM
Disagreed on your first sentence since Mac-7 is quit clear he wants to cut off all assistance.

Agreed the fraud needs to be eliminated. That isn't without it's problems. Like Obamacare, the more paperwork something requires, the less likely those who need it will get it.
Translation: Cut food stamps so mom can't do her nails.

Paying Americans to be lazy and non productive hurts them too.

You are luring people into a life of poverty instead of leaving the door open for a better life that the rest of us enjoy.

Max Rockatansky
02-18-2015, 08:53 AM
Paying Americans to be lazy and non productive hurts them too.

You are luring people into a life of poverty instead of leaving the door open for a better life that the rest of us enjoy.Agreed incentivizing people to be non-productive is harmful. Disagreed food stamps lures people to quit their jobs and sit around doing nothing.

Consider that abortion of a city Detroit. Liberal largess destroyed it. There were other problems too, but their Democrat "leaders" ran the city into the ground. Okay, fine, but now we have a situation of thousands of Americans without jobs, living in poverty and without the ability to even get a job since there are no jobs to be had. Not even minimum wage jobs. How can someone get a job as a janitor or flipping burgers if there are no businesses that hire janitors or burger flippers?

Do we, as a nation, spend money to help build jobs and restore the city to productivity or do we send in the National Guard with a caravan of U-Hauls and relocate, forcibly or not, the poor to where there are jobs?

It's not an easy problem to solve. I do think our nation needs that social safety net, but I am absolutely against turning people into permanent welfare recipients when they have the ability to stand on their own feet. That said, I also understand that it's hard for people to stand up when the rug is constantly pulled out from under them. The Great Recession sent many people into joblessness. Neither the Republicans and Democrats had a golden solution to the problem.

Mac-7
02-18-2015, 09:03 AM
Agreed incentivizing people to be non-productive is harmful. Disagreed food stamps lures people to quit their jobs and sit around doing nothing.

Consider that abortion of a city Detroit. Liberal largess destroyed it. There were other problems too, but their Democrat "leaders" ran the city into the ground. Okay, fine, but now we have a situation of thousands of Americans without jobs, living in poverty and without the ability to even get a job since there are no jobs to be had. Not even minimum wage jobs. How can someone get a job as a janitor or flipping burgers if there are no businesses that hire janitors or burger flippers?

Do we, as a nation, spend money to help build jobs and restore the city to productivity or do we send in the National Guard with a caravan of U-Hauls and relocate, forcibly or not, the poor to where there are jobs?

It's not an easy problem to solve. I do think our nation needs that social safety net, but I am absolutely against turning people into permanent welfare recipients when they have the ability to stand on their own feet.

That said, I also understand that it's hard for people to stand up when the rug is constantly pulled out from under them. The Great Recession sent many people into joblessness. Neither the Republicans and Democrats had a golden solution to the problem.

We have spent trillions fighting poverty since LBJ was president and we have as much poverty today as we had then.

poor people are humans with basic human intelligence.

They are capable of being quite clever when they want to be.

But welfare short-circuits the developmental process of children and adults who come to depend on it.

Cigar
02-18-2015, 09:04 AM
We have spent trillions fighting poverty since LBJ was president and we have as much poverty today as we had then.

poor people are humans with basic human intelligence.

They are capable of being quite clever when they want to be.

But welfare short-circuits to developmental process of children and adults who come to depend on it.

We've spent Trillions Fighting in The Middle East also ... :laugh:

Max Rockatansky
02-18-2015, 09:05 AM
We have spent trillions fighting poverty since LBJ was president and we have as much poverty today as we had then.

poor people are humans with basic human intelligence.

They are capable of being quite clever when they want to be.

But welfare short-circuits to developmental process of children and adults who come to depend on it.
Obviously the Democrats were idiots in "giving a man a fish". That doesn't answer the question of how to provide food for children who have idiots for parents.

Max Rockatansky
02-18-2015, 09:07 AM
We've spent Trillions Fighting in The Middle East also ... :laugh:

A Trillion, not trillions, but your point is taken.

Mac-7
02-18-2015, 09:09 AM
Obviously the Democrats were idiots in "giving a man a fish". That doesn't answer the question of how to provide food for children who have idiots for parents.

The "idiots for parents" probably grew up with idiots for parents themselves and were once the children that qualified for the welfare checks.

Mac-7
02-18-2015, 09:11 AM
A Trillion, not trillions, but your point is taken.

Except that many former supporters of the prolonged war agree that it was a mistake.

But the compassionate class of supporters for welfare have yet to understand the error of their ways.

Max Rockatansky
02-18-2015, 09:20 AM
Except that many former supporters of the prolonged war agree that it was a mistake....
A mistake that cost over 4400 American lives, tens of thousands of Americans wounded and/or maimed for life and over a Trillion dollars from our treasury.

That trillion would have build a lot of bridges, paved a lot of roads and build other infrastructure which would have allowed American businesses to grow, prosper and, yes, hire more workers.

Max Rockatansky
02-18-2015, 09:21 AM
The "idiots for parents" probably grew up with idiots for parents themselves and were once the children that qualified for the welfare checks.
So that makes it okay to let this generation of children starve by cutting off their food stamps?

Mac-7
02-18-2015, 09:23 AM
A mistake that cost over 4400 American lives, tens of thousands of Americans wounded and/or maimed for life and over a Trillion dollars from our treasury.

That trillion would have build a lot of bridges, paved a lot of roads and build other infrastructure which would have allowed American businesses to grow, prosper and, yes, hire more workers.

Now just go find someone who disagrees with you and you'll have a good argument on your hands.

Mac-7
02-18-2015, 09:25 AM
So that makes it okay to let this generation of children starve by cutting off their food stamps?

Only you think the children will starve.

I think the girls at the Vietnamese nail shops will have fewer customers after ending food stamps.

PolWatch
02-18-2015, 09:25 AM
St Ronnie told 'em about those evil welfare queens years ago....why let anything like facts intrude now?

Mac-7
02-18-2015, 09:28 AM
That trillion would have build a lot of bridges, paved a lot of roads and build other infrastructure which would have allowed American businesses to grow, prosper and, yes, hire more workers.

Or we could have not spent it and not added to the national debt.


Now maybe you have the argument you were looking for.

Max Rockatansky
02-18-2015, 01:16 PM
Now just go find someone who disagrees with you and you'll have a good argument on your hands.
There were plenty of RWNJs doing that during the Bush years. It seems they've all flip-flopped like John Kerry and are now in agreement with what I've been saying since late 2002 when the idea of invading Iraq was being bandied about.



Only you think the children will starve.

I think the girls at the Vietnamese nail shops will have fewer customers after ending food stamps.

Clearly you are willing to roll the dice on starving children in order to pursue confirming your theory.

Mac-7
02-18-2015, 01:21 PM
There were plenty of RWNJs doing that during the Bush years.

It seems they've all flip-flopped like John Kerry and are now in agreement with what I've been saying since late 2002 when the idea of invading Iraq was being bandied about.

I would have been one of them.

Bush handled the situation badly and I share some of that blame for supporting him.

But Kerry has proven to just as clueless as bush so I guess we were doomed either way it went.





Clearly you are willing to roll the dice on starving children in order to pursue confirming your theory.

if you want to put it that way.

Which means you have an even lower opinion of poor people than I do.

Max Rockatansky
02-18-2015, 01:24 PM
Or we could have not spent it and not added to the national debt.


Now maybe you have the argument you were looking for.Agreed paying off debt would have been a much better use of the money rather than invading and occupying Iraq. OTOH, I do believe it is in our nation's best interests to invest in infrastructure. Eisenhower's Interstate Highway system was highly controversial, but there should be no doubt it was an investment that paid off six times the cost.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96spring/p96sp16.cfm

http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm

Max Rockatansky
02-18-2015, 01:27 PM
I would have been one of them.

Thanks for admitting that. Now I don't have to dig up all those arguments from 2003 until well after 2008.

Mac-7
02-18-2015, 04:21 PM
Thanks for admitting that. Now I don't have to dig up all those arguments from 2003 until well after 2008.

Why shouldn't I admit it?

Max Rockatansky
02-18-2015, 04:24 PM
Why shouldn't I admit it?
Because you acted like no one ever thought that way.
Now just go find someone who disagrees with you and you'll have a good argument on your hands.

Mac-7
02-18-2015, 04:27 PM
Because you acted like no one ever thought that way.

You have a vivid imagination.

which quote of mine caused you to think that?

Max Rockatansky
02-18-2015, 04:29 PM
You have a vivid imagination.

which quote of mine caused you to think that?
Hint: The one under my previous statement.

Mac-7
02-18-2015, 04:38 PM
Hint: The one under my previous statement.

If I read that I would not think the writer was dis agreeing with you.