# Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood



## timslash (Apr 5, 2015)

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 5, 2015)

Eh, I am sure they will sublimate without it, just like before when you couldn't buy them with food stamps.....


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 5, 2015)

Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 5, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.


So no hamburger either?


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 5, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.
> ...


Hamburger meat runs around $3.50 a pound. Ribeye steak runs around $12.99 a pound. What do you think?


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 5, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Hamburger is ground steak, with a few other ingredients...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 5, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


what if its round steak?.....


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 5, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Like I said ground beef runs about $3.50 a lb. Ribeye runs about $12.99 a pound. A big difference in price.


----------



## Camp (Apr 5, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


All unhealthy food should be off the list. Red meat is not a healthy source of protein.


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 5, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


How about cube steak? How about sirlion? Why don't we let them buy colby steak? They are tax payer supported, they shouldn't eat better than the average tax payer.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 5, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


I get ribeye for $6.99 a pound at the Supermercado in town....


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 5, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


What do they do, ride around till they find a dead cow to butcher?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 5, 2015)

The main recipients of food stamps are children, elderly, veterans, disabled and of course, that most hated of all Americans, single mothers whose children's fathers have run out on them. Its very important to the right to punish people for being poor and to do anything and everything to keep them that way.

Whaddaya wanna bet Brattin calls himself a "christian".

BTW, his demonic bill is all for show. Or, just as likely, the idiot has no idea how the system works. Thanks to gerrymandering hewill feed at the public trough for the rest of his working life and have plenty of time to do a lot more damage.


Brattin admits that the language might need some tweaking. “My intention wasn’t to get rid of canned tuna and fish sticks,” he said. But he also insists that people are abusing the system by purchasing luxury foods, and believes that that must be stopped, * even if it ends up requiring the inclusion of other less luxurious items.*


“I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards,” he said. “When* I can’t afford it on my pay*, I don’t want people on the taxpayer’s dime to afford those kinds of foods either.”


Of course, Brattin is not only *a first class asshole, he’s also full of shit*. Missouri legislators are paid $35,915 per year plus a $104 a day per diem for miscellaneous costs such as food. Seeing as how a steak can be purchased for under $20.00 at Walmart, it’s pretty safe to assume Brattin can afford to buy prime cuts of beef from time to time. Filet mignon is even cheaper. Brattin can easily purchase filet mignon, a package of two in fact, at a Missouri Walmart for under $9.00.


*Brattin makes more than twice the annual earnings of a family who is eligible to receive food assistance*, and he probably makes a mint during tax refund season considering he has five kids. And you can bet he isn’t allowing his children to live on fish sticks and tuna. And apparently, Brattin doesn’t understand that his own pay is courtesy of the very taxpayers that he has been attacking relentlessly with stupid bills.


In addition, SNAP rules allow recipients to purchase steak and seafood because they are food items and it would be costly and burdensome to restrict these items. *Brattin’s bill also has no teeth because only Congress can change SNAP rules.*


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 5, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?


I am against that, but they surely should not be used for candy, cookies, chips, soda and junky fast-food, or anything else unhealthy.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 5, 2015)

Camp said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


I eat about five pounds of red meat a week.

I am 66, 6'4", 185lbs, and pretty damned healthy.

Hasn't hurt me a bit, as far as I can tell.


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 5, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> The main recipients of food stamps are children, elderly, veterans, disabled and of course, that most hated of all Americans, single mothers whose children's fathers have run out on them. Its very important to the right to punish people for being poor and to do anything and everything to keep them that way.
> 
> Whaddaya wanna bet Brattin calls himself a "christian".
> 
> ...


Yeah mothers really need it? The one I saw the other day bought 4 20 oz moutain dews, and candy bars for the youngsters. If she really needed the money she wouldn't be wasting it. Then She whipped out cash and bought cigarettes and 2 25 oz ice houses. That's what we pay for. If someone is really needy I have no problem giving them welfare, but I see them abusing the system all the time. Heck even the ice cream truck takes ebt cards.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 5, 2015)

Camp said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


but a bowl of sugar in the morning for kids is ok?....gotcha....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 5, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


eating fucking round steak is eating better than the avg tax payer?...where the hell do you live?....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 5, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


i get that too when its on sale.....you better check to make sure its not old horse meat being past off as beef....


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 5, 2015)

Don't count on the person using that EBT card being on welfare.  Many times the cards are sold at a discount for cash which is used to buy drugs.  The person using the EBT can afford to splurge.


----------



## theHawk (Apr 5, 2015)

Sounds like a good idea to me.  No one on food stamps should be buying lobster.

Of course only Assclowns would be outraged by this common sense idea.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 5, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> The main recipients of food stamps are children, elderly, veterans, disabled and of course, that most hated of all Americans, single mothers whose children's fathers have run out on them. Its very important to the right to punish people for being poor and to do anything and everything to keep them that way.
> 
> Whaddaya wanna bet Brattin calls himself a "christian".
> 
> ...



I make more than $35,000 a year,  and I don't buy expensive steak...hell,  I haven't smoked a brisket in a year,  and it is one of my favorite things to do and eat. 

Because I have to EARN that money...and it goes a lot farther when I buy pork shoulder and chicken.  And if you buy that meat glued fillet mignon from Wal-mart,  you might as well rip the sole off your shoe and eat it...because that's the consistency of the filet mignon after you cook it to the doneness that will kill the bacteria in the meat glued middle.  How do you not know these things?  Did you write that,  or was it some limousine liberal that has never done their own shopping in their life?


----------



## Anathema (Apr 5, 2015)

Very simply we need to go back to a system where people on food assistance come and pick up bags of preselected food based on the number of people in the family, their ages, allergies and their ethnic background.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 5, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > The main recipients of food stamps are children, elderly, veterans, disabled and of course, that most hated of all Americans, single mothers whose children's fathers have run out on them. Its very important to the right to punish people for being poor and to do anything and everything to keep them that way.
> ...




I haven't eaten meat in more than 30 years and I don't shop at Walmart so no, I don't know if the meat is glued together. 

_"How do you not know these things?  Did you write that...?_"

Its very clearly a hot link?

How do you not know that?


----------



## Meathead (Apr 5, 2015)

"Poor" Americans are too fat.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 5, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...




Ah...I forgot you didn't eat meat,  my fault.   

I thought it was a cut and paste,  but I wasn't sure.

It is glued together,  and it's dangerous IMO.  

You can cook a steak rare,  medium rare and medium relatively safely because the inside has not been exposed to the bacteria in the outside environment.  Ground beef must be cooked to a much higher temperature in the middle for this reason.  "Filet mignon" that is prepackage (not just at Walmart,  but anywhere) is glued together from scraps with meat glue.  If you aren't informed of that fact,  and cook these bacon wrapped filet mignon steaks to an internal temperature of less than 160 degrees,  you risk exposure to live E. coli bacteria.

And steak worth having is very expensive.  We have a good steak maybe four times a year.

-----------------------------------------------------


This "steak and seafood" problem becomes an issue because we all see it with our own eyes.  I personally see folks whip out the EBT card buying high dollar steaks,  lobster,  fresh shrimp,  expensive stuff.

Is it everyone...no,  of course not...but it's enough folks abusing the system that it has become an issue.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 5, 2015)

In this economy I can't hardly afford to buy hamburger, let alone steak and seafood.

man... I guess I need to live off the backs of the taxpayers and get me some food stamps. oh wait. I am one of those taxpayer..

pretty much sickening


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 5, 2015)




----------



## Rozman (Apr 5, 2015)

I was on a service call at a fish store in a bad area some time back.
It's a place I had been dispatched to many times over the years.
On this occasion the place seemed pretty quiet.
I asked one of the workers there why this was.
He remarked that I should see the place around the first few days of the beginning of the month....
The place would be packed with the folks loading up on lobster,shrimp,king crab legs....

All purchased on EBT cards.( Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards....

Nice.

Hey.Nothing illegal.
They were buying food.

I bought a lobster tail yesterday...Last one I got was six months ago....
But then I had to use my own money.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 5, 2015)

"Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood"

Missouri republicans have their priorities all wrong, like most republicans elsewhere.


----------



## Meathead (Apr 5, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood"
> 
> Missouri republicans have their priorities all wrong, like most republicans elsewhere.


The spending of taxpayer money shouldn't be a priority?! Seriously?


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 5, 2015)

Hell. they sell these cards for half the price that is on them for drugs. say 200 on the card they get $100 cash

they just give the person their pin number or go shopping with them

Saw it all the time back in my hometown


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 5, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?



People on food stamps should be expected to suffer
How else will they seek to better themselves?

I'm thinking road kill, dumpster diving and expired food


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 5, 2015)

Rozman said:


> I was on a service call at a fish store in a bad area some time back.
> It's a place I had been dispatched to many times over the years.
> On this occasion the place seemed pretty quiet.
> I asked one of the workers there why this was.
> ...



Yes...that is what I hear

All people on welfare drive Cadilacs and eat filet mignon and Lobster and we pay for it


----------



## Meathead (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> People on food stamps should be expected to suffer
> How else will they seek to better themselves?
> 
> I'm thinking road kill, dumpster diving and expired food


Why would they eat that stuff if they're getting food stamps?

What are you talking about?


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> timslash said:
> 
> 
> > That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> ...



If they can get more in the multiple and redundant handout programs than they can make working using the skills they offer, what incentive is there for them to better themselves.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 5, 2015)

Meathead said:


> "Poor" Americans are too fat.


You got it.

Morbid obesity and morbid obesity disorders are killing the poor and rich alike.

At least the rich pay for their demise.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > timslash said:
> ...



didn't Obama SAY everyone should have some skin in the game? But now a Republican suggest anything on food stamps, welfare etc. we get threads such as this..They are trying to take food out of the mouth of them folks.....it's the same old BS


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> timslash said:
> 
> 
> > That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> ...



On multiple occasions, I've seen those using food stamps, meaning they've claimed they don't have cash to buy their own food, use cash money to buy beer and cigarettes.  Personally, I don't care if they smoke or drink.  What I do care is about is that they make a claim they can't afford to meet their needs yet seem to have plenty of money to buy those items.  If they can buy beer and cigarettes with cash, shouldn't that cash be used to buy food first instead of expecting the hardworking people to fund it for them so they can buy those other things?   In those situations, I don't have a problem if they suffer.  They're abusing the system and need to do so.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 5, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Time for a head tax on all able-bodied persons, payable in cash or labor.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What he meant was that those who won't vote for him should have skin in the game so those who will vote for him can be pandered to with that money.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 5, 2015)

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > People on food stamps should be expected to suffer
> ...



That's the idea

They enjoy being poor. Poor people will not want to improve themselves unless you make them suffer

That is why we have Republicans......to look out for the poor


----------



## Meathead (Apr 5, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Most of them are momma's who don't know who their babydaddies are.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


If they're receiving a handout funded by the taxes they don't pay, it's time they actually did something for it.  I don't really care if the amount they do equals what they get as long as they have to do something other than stick their hand out for it.  We have what's called Adopt A Highway where I live.  I say let the able bodied welfare recipients adopt a portion of it.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > timslash said:
> ...


Based on their annual income, they qualify for food stamps to support their families. 
Doesn't mean they can't have other income


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



oh right. how could I forget. he's a such a liar


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



They have no incentive to improve themselves if they can get an amount equal to or greater than they can make working.   Why would they go to work and spend 40+ hours/week doing something when they can get the same doing nothing and have those 40+ hours to use spending someone else's money?


----------



## Meathead (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


You may like road kill. No one else eats it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Unless the consequences outweigh the benefits, actions don't change.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It's not other income.  It's a total income.  If that total income is so low they can't provide their needs, their income is so low they can't meet their wants.  It's not my place to provide them their needs so they can fulfill their wants.  I'd let a person like that starve before giving them crumbs.


----------



## Camp (Apr 5, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


Give it some time, that diet will catch up with you, but that is not the point. There are healthier, less expensive options. You pay for your own food, so you can eat whatever you want. If I have to pay for your food you will be eating beans instead of beef, perhaps some chicken.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Only a liberal would think doing without free steak and seafood is "suffering".

Send me some money Rightwinger...I'm suffering.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > I was on a service call at a fish store in a bad area some time back.
> ...



I've seen those on food stamps, meaning they've claimed they don't have money, use money to buy things when that money should be used for food.  If they can afford beer, that money should be used for food so those of us actually contributing to society can keep what we've earned.  Someone that would use food stamps then use cash to buy cigarettes can starve for all I care.


----------



## Camp (Apr 5, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


How the heck do you come to that response from my post? My proposal for the government food support program is to take things like sugary cereals and snacks off the available list. I don't mind helping to feed hungry people, but I want to feed them healthy food and be careful about how the funds are spent so maximum nutrition is obtained for a minimum price. But it will never happen. The corporate controlled food industry won't allow it. Too many people making too much money from feeding junk food, lobster and steak to the poor.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...



Can you point to all the examples of poor people doing better when you remove aid?

There are plenty of red states to choose from?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 5, 2015)

Missourian said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...


Very true

That is why Republicans advocate increased suffering for the poor

Makes em try harder


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 5, 2015)

Camp said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


you are right.....i was wrong.....


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I said they can't do better.  They do better with aid than they could do working based on the skills they offer.  That's why they prefer to stay on it rather than work.  They get the same or more and don't have to spend 40+ hours like the honorable people earning it.  

There's one blue area within my red state.  It's the poorest and high receiving are within the State.  In fact, about 5 years ago, that blue district was the 10th highest receiving district nationwide out of 435 in the amount it received per capita.


----------



## Meathead (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Do people in your circles eat road kill and get food stamps?


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No it doesn't.  It gives bleeding heart like you a chance to support more being taken from honorable people who actually earn their money.


----------



## Meathead (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


Why would a parasite care? It's what they do.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



The only blue area in my State gets more in welfare than any of the other red areas.  The one blue area beats the other SIX red ones hands down.  It's what make the state look bad.  In fact, about 5 years ago, that blue area was the 10th highest receiving welfare area in the country.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


you know RW in many instances you are right about how many Republicans/Conservatives look at welfare......but at the same time many Democrats/Liberals look like enablers to me.....


----------



## Missourian (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...








Online Gift Certificates Gift Cards Unique Gift​
Fifty bucks a month ought to cover it.

Send them to:  
Missourian
c/o General delivery
Stockton,  MO 65785​

Thank you in advance for alleviating my "suffering".  You're the best.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 5, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Makes em try harder
> ...




Hey man,  don't blow this for me...haven't you heard?  I'm sufferin'.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 5, 2015)

And so liberals bitch when Republicans "Pull a Moochelle" and try to mandate that people eat basic, healthy foods.

Cutest thing so far today!


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 5, 2015)

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...


Man, I saw a freshly killed young moose in Wyoming, and wanted to cut out the backstrap, but it was illegal, and I was headed to Minnesota anyway, and really didn't have the time.

What a waste of fine, prime roadkill that was.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 5, 2015)

Camp said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


If someone else has to pay for my food, I will slit my wrists.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 5, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



You can buy steaks on sale or buy a cheaper cut.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 5, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



I would have no problem helping feed the truly poor, if they were given good food, and instructions in how to prepare it.

There is no excuse for the abuses of the SNAP as it is run today.

Chips, soda and candy are not FOOD.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 5, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


You will never see yellow tagged meat in a SNAP recipients cart at Walmart.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 5, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


What makes you think that?

If they have $200 they still need it to go as far as possible

It is a conservative myth that that the poor eat better than we do


----------



## Camp (Apr 5, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...


I don't want any part of that. If that is the case I am taking back any implied offer to pay for your food. Better you starve than slit your wrist.


----------



## Meathead (Apr 5, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> If someone else has to pay for my food, I will slit my wrists.


Extreme perhaps, but the concept of pride is lost of many liberals.


----------



## Rozman (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




The first of the month I am happy I made rent....
And then I come across those who are on assistance buying lobster tails and King Crab legs....
I have a bit of a problem with that...


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 5, 2015)

Rozman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...


You forgot about the Escalades


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Apr 5, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > The main recipients of food stamps are children, elderly, veterans, disabled and of course, that most hated of all Americans, single mothers whose children's fathers have run out on them. Its very important to the right to punish people for being poor and to do anything and everything to keep them that way.
> ...



You haven't smoked a brisket in a year?!

Until I read that, I respected you, but now I'm putting you on ignore.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



You can't buy them cheaper than basic 73% - 27% ground beef.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 5, 2015)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...




I don't blame you.  It's a sad,  sad state of affairs.

I want to,  believe me...but I see $47 on a six pound brisket,  and I just can't bring myself to shell out that kinda dough.  Not when Boston Butt is $2.69 a pound.  And pulled pork runs a close second to brisket.

I told Angel "I remember when brisket was a cheap cut no one wanted."

Those were the days.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



They must.  Many don't seem to be doing anything about bettering themselves and demanding the government force their employer, if they work, to pay them more is getting better.  It might be getting more but they're still the same entitlement minded person.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Anathema said:


> Very simply we need to go back to a system where people on food assistance come and pick up bags of preselected food based on the number of people in the family, their ages, allergies and their ethnic background.



Give them a circle of government cheese.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> In this economy I can't hardly afford to buy hamburger, let alone steak and seafood.
> 
> man... I guess I need to live off the backs of the taxpayers and get me some food stamps. oh wait. I am one of those taxpayer..
> 
> pretty much sickening



Funny how those of us who pay the taxes that fund such programs don't benefit from them and vice versa.  Sounds backwards to me.


----------



## Meathead (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Funny how those of us who pay the taxes that fund such programs don't benefit from them and vice versa.  Sounds backwards to me.


Welcome to the concept of parasites. They are frequently found in the natural world and thus among men, as we are not less.


----------



## BlueGin (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > In this economy I can't hardly afford to buy hamburger, let alone steak and seafood.
> ...



What's sad is that the people on food stamps eat better than the people working to fund it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> The main recipients of food stamps are children, elderly, veterans, disabled and of course, that most hated of all Americans, single mothers whose children's fathers have run out on them. Its very important to the right to punish people for being poor and to do anything and everything to keep them that way.
> 
> Whaddaya wanna bet Brattin calls himself a "christian".
> 
> ...



"The main recipients of food stamps are children, elderly, veterans, disabled and of course, that most hated of all Americans, single mothers whose children's fathers have run out on them. Its very important to the right to punish people for being poor and to do anything and everything to keep them that way."

Since I didn't pick the person the single mother spread her legs for, it means it's not my responsibility to be forced to fund the results of her choice.  It's interesting that you hold those of us not creating that child more responsible for feeding it than you do the sperm donor that did.  

I didn't cause them to be poor but you seem to think that taking money from me and others like me will somehow alleviate poverty.  We tried that shit for 50 years now and it didn't work.  You don't have a problem if the government takes money from me that can go to MY kid in order it go to ones I didn't create.  Why should mine do with less so someone else's can have more?


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



When it's not their money, why should they care?  All they have to do is bitch and whine when what they have handed to them isn't enough to be able to buy what people who earn the money they have buy and bleeding hearts vote to increase what they have handed to them.  If I have to be responsible using the money I've earned, those who have a portion of what I've earned handed to them should be just as, if not more, responsible.  Problem is when people think someone owes them something, that concept disappears.


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 5, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I will go back to what I witnessed. Mother with a couple of children bought 4 20 oz mountain dews. A handful of candy bars with her ebt card. Then she got 2 24 oz ice houses and cigarettes with her money. If she can spend $10.00 on junk food on my dime, then turn around and buy alcohol and cigarettes. She can buy her own food needed to feed her family. That's not hate, just common sense.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 5, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Not true.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 5, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



But then, ground beef is about as bad for you as anything else you can stick in your mouth.  Even cheaper cuts of beef are better.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 5, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...



I don't know what state you live in, but I know for a fact that alcohol and cigarettes are not allowed in the majority of states.  Blame the retailer.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 5, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Doesn't mean someone having their food supplied should be buying more expensive steak.  When you demand someone else buy your food, be prepared to have those you force to fund it have a say in what you buy. Don't like the conditions, don't ask for the money.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 5, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





Missourian said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


ok.....im sorry.....


----------



## Mad Scientist (Apr 5, 2015)

Steak and Seafood is good, healthy food. It *can* be a bit price but it still much better than Fast Food crapolla.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 5, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


just because you are poor does not mean you dont know how to cook...


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 5, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Agree

I won't pay that kind of money for beef brisket when I can get better cuts of meat for the same price

Pork butt goes about $2 a pound and takes about 14 hours to smoke. I'd just as soon make more pulled pork


----------



## BlueGin (Apr 5, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...


And most if those women have full mani's and pedi's that they up keep monthly.


----------



## BlueGin (Apr 5, 2015)

Mad Scientist said:


> Steak and Seafood is good, healthy food. It *can* be a bit price but it still much better than Fast Food crapolla.


Seafood and steak can also be found on sale frequently. Last time I bought crab legs they were 5.99 a pound... steak about the same. Albertsons also has steaks buy one get one free a lot.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Apr 5, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Alright, I'll let it go this time - as long as you use a dry rub and don't smoke the pork with bbq sauce on it.  That's unforgivable.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 5, 2015)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Alright, I'll let it go this time - as long as you use a dry rub and don't smoke the pork with bbq sauce on it.  That's unforgivable.



*involuntarily shudders*

You obviously have not been introduced to my thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/smokin-supper-mmm.209074/.

Feel free to contribute,  you and rightwinger both....and anyone else who enjoys the Q.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 5, 2015)

Missourian said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Alright, I'll let it go this time - as long as you use a dry rub and don't smoke the pork with bbq sauce on it.  That's unforgivable.
> ...


*.and anyone else who enjoys the Q*
loved the episodes he was on......


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 6, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Well, that certainly is a charitable way to look at it.  Or not.   Do you think that the vast majority of people on welfare want to be on welfare?  Because my experience tells me that they'd rather be doing just about anything else but asking for help.  So when you say "those you forced to fund", I have to point out the rather selfish attitude that portrays.  My experience also tells me that the poor are having a hard enough time without having to deal with draconian measures and people who consider them to be, if not second class citizens, then not worth the bother.  If someone on welfare wants to buy themselves or their child a steak from time to time, who are we to tell them they cannot?  Would you prefer that they instead spend that money on much less healthy food, because when you look at the relatively tiny amount of aid they receive, the food they can afford to buy with it is usually very unhealthy, and that unhealthy food is almost always what they end up purchasing..


----------



## eots (Apr 6, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?


whats wrong with beef and seafood..you can buy a lot cheap food and pay all the medical bills later on  and treatment for their add children as well..if you are to restrict anything wouldint junk food make more sense


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 6, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...




* rib eye for $6.99 a pound*

yikes


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Some places do not over inflate, like chain stores..


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Apr 6, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?



I'm ok with...Two-thirds of that. Seafood or steak though is only luxurious if prepared well. Doesn't come that way or anything.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 6, 2015)

Why? If a poor person wants to eat a steak why is it so wrong?


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

For 7 dollars you can go to the Chinese barfett and have seafood and steak...


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Why? If a poor person wants to eat a steak why is it so wrong?


the GOP wants you to eat canned tuna...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 6, 2015)

If a poor person wants to eat good once per day instead of eating crap 2 or 3 times per day. I don't see the problem.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Apr 6, 2015)

And if the poor person wants to eat well, or you know, write well, all the better.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Apr 6, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?



This thing shows the true hatred of the poor this one Republican has. While I don't think it's true of all Republicans, for this one at least it is. He isn't suggesting a cutback so much as the poor shouldn't eat as well as the not-poor. What a dickhead.


----------



## Care4all (Apr 6, 2015)

Yes of course the cons know and have seen personally the millions of food stamp recipients ALL buying lobster and filet minion every single trip to the grocer....

You are such hypocrites.....

Get mommy government out of our "business"  bull CRAP....Michelle is forcing my kids to eat lower calorie foods at school, bull CRAP you mutter

WHILE you sit back AND PROMOTE and support this kind of gvt Nanny bull shit.....

Carry on...be your USUAL two faced selves and continue with your shallow, thoughtless bitching.

And continue to support your Nanny gvt making all decisions for every one because none of us could possibly think or make decisions for ourselves.....  yep, good ole Cons luv their Nanny govt!!!!


----------



## Politico (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Healthy eh? That is why they don't allow you to buy real cheese but Kraft American is ok.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Why not use food stamps for seeds and plant the seeds for food?


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

Politico said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


I did not know that. Are you saying there are already restrictions being implemented in regards to the food allowed to be purchased? People are able to obtain steaks and lobster, but not cheese? Maybe you are making the claim American cheese is not healthy, or at least Kraft American cheese. What the heck are you trying to say?


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Why not use food stamps for seeds and plant the seeds for food?


We already do that. It is called farm subsidies.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Being that welfare for a sizable portion is multi-generational, it's easy to see how the answer to that question could be yes.  

It's not selfish to want to keep money you've earned.  However, it is to think someone that earned it owes it to you.  

Who are we to say they can't?  We are the ones being forced to pay for their food in the first place.  

They have a choice.  If they don't want the rest of us who are forced to fund their food for them having a say, don't ask for help.  If the choice is to ask, be willing to accept the conditions under which those of us forced to fund it put on it.  You sound like the type of person that would go to a bank, ask for a loan to buy a car, then think you can set the conditions user which you pay it back.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

Care4all said:


> Yes of course the cons know and have seen personally the millions of food stamp recipients ALL buying lobster and filet minion every single trip to the grocer....
> 
> You are such hypocrites.....
> 
> ...


 
Well said

From the party that wants to get Big Government out of our lives

Is that a TWINKIE you are buying that child?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 6, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?



Good.  If you're using my (tax) money to buy your food then you betcha I get to have a say in what you purchase with it.  Don't like it?  Then don't use food stamps.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 6, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Yes of course the cons know and have seen personally the millions of food stamp recipients ALL buying lobster and filet minion every single trip to the grocer....
> ...



Twinkies are crap and a contributing factor to the obesity epidemic.  Why do you want food stamp recipients to be obese?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

l





Zoom-boing said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


 
You sound just like Michelle Obama



.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 6, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Michele Obama is a law maker?  News to me.

You didn't answer my question.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 6, 2015)

Another prime example of progressives inability to connect the dots.

Steak and lobster purchases? No food stamps for those assholes!!!


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

Zoom-boing said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


 
Michele Obama does not make our lunch laws?
You need to inform your right wing media

Fact is, I don't care what they buy with their $200 in Food Stamps

If they want to blow it all on Filet Mignon and caviar and top it off with a Twinkie for desert, that is their choice

I really don't care if they starve for the rest of the month because of it. But I think the luxury buying food stamp user is a rightwing myth designed to convince people we need to cut the money we spend on food stamps...."because they just waste it anyway"

I would suggest that the average food stamp users knows how to maximize that $200 to feed her family and that they do not waste it


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 6, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



We need to cut money we spend on food stamps because giving people food (stamps) rather than letting them provide it for themselves makes them dependent on government.  Food stamps are meant to be used as a leg up, not a leg to stand on.  Generational/long term use is the problem.  Limit the funds, limit the time spent on it, get people back on their feet depending on themselves asap.


----------



## Meathead (Apr 6, 2015)

I would suggest the obvious. If, as rightwinger says, anyone wants to blow $200 on caviar and such, then they are clearly too well off to be on the government dole. I don't think we should be subsidizing pimps, prostitutes and drug dealers who are not well known for reporting their income.


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

Zoom-boing said:


> timslash said:
> 
> 
> > That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> ...





skookerasbil said:


> Another prime example of progressives inability to connect the dots.
> 
> Steak and lobster purchases? No food stamps for those assholes!!!


The problem will not be resolved because the food industry will not allow it. The the lobster and steak problem is not one created by liberals. It is in fact a problem created by the commercial interest that profit off of selling lobster and steak to the poor. The lobster and steak industries along with the garbage food industries like sugary cereals, chips, cookies and snacks prevent food guidelines from being accepted and implemented. Most of people we call liberals or progressives would be happy to implement rules that required recipients to purchase healthier foods.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

Zoom-boing said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


 
I know....we need to make poor people suffer
It is the only way we can get them to stop wanting to be poor

Can you point to a single example where poor people have done better by cutting their aid?


----------



## Meathead (Apr 6, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> I know....we need to make poor people suffer
> It is the only way we can get them to stop wanting to be poor
> 
> Can you point to a single example where poor people have done better by cutting their aid?


I KNOW!!! How can people withhold steak and lobster from the poor! Have they no heart?!


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 6, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Can you cite a statistic from a reputable source that backs up that claim, or are you just making stuff up?



> It's not selfish to want to keep money you've earned.



Actually, it is.  You are a citizen of the United States.  That comes with certain rights, but it also comes with responsibilities.  One of those responsibilities is paying taxes.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

This is all part of the misdirection of Conservatives

Pay no attention to the one percent using the tax code as their personal piggy bank. Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than you because he deserves it

Your problem is that mother on food stamps who is buying MEAT for her children. She is the one who is abusing the system


----------



## Meathead (Apr 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Actually, it is.  You are a citizen of the United States.  That comes with certain rights, but it also comes with responsibilities.  One of those responsibilities is paying taxes.


Do the 47% that pay no federal have rights too?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 6, 2015)

Zoom-boing said:


> We need to cut money we spend on food stamps because giving people food (stamps) rather than letting them provide it for themselves makes them dependent on government.  Food stamps are meant to be used as a leg up, not a leg to stand on.  Generational/long term use is the problem.  Limit the funds, limit the time spent on it, get people back on their feet depending on themselves asap.





rightwinger said:


> I know....we need to make poor people suffer
> It is the only way we can get them to stop wanting to be poor
> 
> Can you point to a single example where poor people have done better by cutting their aid?



Only a leftist would see getting people back on their feet and providing for themselves as 'making them suffer'!


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 6, 2015)

Ah!  The Compassionate Conservatives!  Why not put a caldron of gruel on the town square and call it a day?

You hate the poor, so why not be even more visceral about it?


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 6, 2015)

Care4all said:


> Yes of course the cons know and have seen personally the millions of food stamp recipients ALL buying lobster and filet minion every single trip to the grocer....
> 
> You are such hypocrites.....
> 
> ...



what? sheeesh. You don't mind them eating better than you do off YOUR tax dollars while not have to work or look for a job. fine


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 6, 2015)

This is in MISSOURI so unless you live there it's no skin off anyone

protest if your states decides to curb how taxpayers HANDOUTS are given


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 6, 2015)

Meathead said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it is.  You are a citizen of the United States.  That comes with certain rights, but it also comes with responsibilities.  One of those responsibilities is paying taxes.
> ...



If they are American citizens, then the answer is yes.  Are you Romney's brother, or what?


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 6, 2015)

If you people think we can keep paying to support almost 50% of the people in this country and our families at the same...think again. THEY AREN'T THE only struggling these day


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 6, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> If you people think we can keep paying to support almost 50% of the people in this country and our families at the same...think again. THEY AREN'T THE only struggling these day



Well, then perhaps the Republicans should get out of their swimming pools and create jobs to get people back to work and off welfare.  If you people can't be bothered to do that, then you have no one but yourselves to blame.  That said, do you have any statistics that show that 50% of the American people are on welfare?  No?  Right.  You made it up.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 6, 2015)

Meathead said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > "Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood"
> ...




If this was about spending tax money, the subject would be corporate welfare. Or how about welfarel ranchers? Both involve many more millions than food stamp fraud among the very poor.


----------



## Meathead (Apr 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Actually, it is.  You are a citizen of the United States.  That comes with certain rights, but it also comes with responsibilities.  One of those responsibilities is paying taxes.


So you didn't really mean this.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > If you people think we can keep paying to support almost 50% of the people in this country and our families at the same...think again. THEY AREN'T THE only struggling these day
> ...




The right doesn't create jobs. "Trickle down" doesn't create jobs.


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

Meathead said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it is.  You are a citizen of the United States.  That comes with certain rights, but it also comes with responsibilities.  One of those responsibilities is paying taxes.
> ...


There is no 47% that pay no federal tax. You are using the 47% Romney suggested are collecting federal checks of one sort of another.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 6, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> This is in MISSOURI so unless you live there it's no skin off anyone
> 
> protest if your states decides to curb how taxpayers HANDOUTS are given




Have you forgotten that you have said you get food stamps and government cheese? Do you remember when you wrote that you did not understand your Medicaid? 

Are you now going to change your story?


----------



## Meathead (Apr 6, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> If this was about spending tax money, the subject would be corporate welfare. Or how about farewell ranchers? Both involve many more millions than food stamp fraud among the very poor.


"Farewell ranchers"? Sounds like a mix of Brokeback Mountain and the Goodbye Girl.

Corporations and most ranchers, even the farewell type I imagine, pay taxes. It is the parasites we're discussing, not dingbat talking points.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 6, 2015)

This program used to be ONLY for women with children...and it used to have a limit on HOW many children they could collect on. Now homeless men can collect, women with 15 children can collect 1000's of dollars. it's a freaking free for all and probably half are able bodied who could be out working a job

we've been hosed and then you have people beating you over the head because you want to PUT A CURB on what they buy with your money

that is why we are so screwed


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

Meathead said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > If this was about spending tax money, the subject would be corporate welfare. Or how about farewell ranchers? Both involve many more millions than food stamp fraud among the very poor.
> ...


The majority of food assistance program recipients are children and senior citizens. Are those the parasites you are talking about?


----------



## Meathead (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Apparently it's down to 43% now. Anyway, you're nitpicking and simultaneously being a dingbat.

"That "47 percent" quote that helped sink Mitt Romney's presidential hopes? Better make that 43 percent now.

The share of households who aren't paying any federal income tax has fallen, and a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center predicts that it will continue to shrink in years to come."

Now it s the 43 percent Fewer paying no income tax


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Well, then *perhaps the Republicans should get out of their swimming pools and create jobs to get people back to work and off welfare*.  If you people can't be bothered to do that, then you have no one but yourselves to blame.  That said, do you have any statistics that show that 50% of the American people are on welfare?  No?  Right.  You made it up.



Once again, sending in someone else to do the work.  It's the 'progressive' way!


----------



## Meathead (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


Their mommas, and yours.


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> This program used to be ONLY for women with children...and it used to have a limit on HOW many children they could collect on. Now homeless men can collect, women with 15 children can collect 1000's of dollars. it's a freaking free for all and probably half are able bodied who could be out working a job
> 
> we've been hosed and then you have people beating you over the head because you want to PUT A CURB on what they buy with your money
> 
> that is why we are so screwed


None of your post can be backed up. It is just blatant lying to make some point you otherwise can not make. Seems to be a pattern with you.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 6, 2015)

Who knew when you when were born in this country you had to work to take care of YOUR family and everyone else's too

but don;t you DARE suggest any changes on it because you might have to cut in trying times doesn't mean they should by frikken golly

sick and disgusting


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...


Must have pushed one of your buttons to make you insult my deceased mother.


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...


Hey shit head, income tax is not the only tax collected by the fed's.


----------



## Meathead (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> Hey shit head, income tax is not the only tax collected by the fed's.


Sure, the government can borrow and raid social security assets.


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Hey shit head, income tax is not the only tax collected by the fed's.
> ...


Is this where you attempt to back peddle rather than be man enough to admit your mistake? OK, be the good little punk you are and find an excuse for other taxes people pay. Start with the fuel tax.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 6, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > The main recipients of food stamps are children, elderly, veterans, disabled and of course, that most hated of all Americans, single mothers whose children's fathers have run out on them. Its very important to the right to punish people for being poor and to do anything and everything to keep them that way.
> ...




_"... the single mother spread her legs ..."_

There it is again. That disgusting belief that its the woman's fault. Without knowing anything of the circumstances, she is always to blame for being a single mother. 

_"It's interesting that you hold those of us not creating that child more responsible for feeding it than you do the sperm donor that did. "_

Thank you for that. Its a lie but at least you acknowledge that it takes two to make a baby. 

RWs would be against this same woman aborting that fetus but once its a baby, they want to let it and the mother starve. 

_"Why should mine do with less so someone else's can have more?"_

If your kid is doing with less, get off your butt and get a better job or a second job.

That's what you RWs say about people on food stamps so why isn't it true for you too?


----------



## Scorpion (Apr 6, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> The main recipients of food stamps are children, elderly, veterans, disabled and of course, that most hated of all Americans, single mothers whose children's fathers have run out on them. Its very important to the right to punish people for being poor and to do anything and everything to keep them that way.
> 
> Whaddaya wanna bet Brattin calls himself a "christian".
> 
> ...


I've worked in a supermarket for 34 years.
I see firsthand what this person is speaking about.
The system could easily be implemented like WIC which will alert the recipient of items NOT permitted. 
Quite often an order is full of overly processed unhealthy fattening foods that have no nutritional value. 
Candy and soda pop are not necessities nor are salty snacks and chips.
The poor are disproportionately more likely to be overweight and be less healthy than people who have higher incones.
You'd think the federal government would have a vested interest in providing aid for healthy options.

As an aside, it is not unusual to have a customer pull out a $100 bill to pay for taxable items in their order or an American Express card among the wallet full of credit cards.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

Zoom-boing said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > We need to cut money we spend on food stamps because giving people food (stamps) rather than letting them provide it for themselves makes them dependent on government.  Food stamps are meant to be used as a leg up, not a leg to stand on.  Generational/long term use is the problem.  Limit the funds, limit the time spent on it, get people back on their feet depending on themselves asap.
> ...


 
You are advocating removing food from their mouths

You have yet to provide a single case where cutting aid to poor people has helped them to do better. Red States slash aid to the poor all the time. Show me where the poor in those states do better than the poor in blue states


----------



## Correll (Apr 6, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...





Can you support your claim that the end result (single motherhood) is the man's fault and not the woman's? Generally speaking, of course.


----------



## Meathead (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Look, I've trumped you across the board whenever out paths have crossed. Since you come off like a pedantic little bitch you have to accept the occasional bitch slap.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


OK, I never see yellow tagged meat in a SNAP recipient's cart, BECAUSE I GRAB IT FIRST!!!!!

Happy now.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

Correll said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 
Is he supporting her?


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...


Where in your dopey imagination did you bitch slap me?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 6, 2015)

Correll said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...




Post a link to where I wrote single motherhood is _"the man's fault and not the woman's"_.

It takes two to make a baby and its the equal responsibility to support and raise that baby.

IMO


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 6, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Ah!  The Compassionate Conservatives!  Why not put a caldron of gruel on the town square and call it a day?
> 
> You hate the poor, so why not be even more visceral about it?





Liberals love the poor....and do everything they can to make more of 'em.



1. " .... the most dangerous element of the welfare state is not the fact that it spins up into increasing debt, but rather that*it creates citizens who are unfit for democratic self-governance.*"

.*"....welfare programs rarely encourage good behavior.*For example, AFDC explicitly frowns upon thrift, as recipients are allowed to have only $1,000 in savings in order to remain eligible.

Grace Capetillo, a 36-year-old welfare mother, found this out the hard way after she managed to save up $3,000 over four years, only to be sued by the county of Milwaukee.... the county's request that she pay back the $15,545 she had received since going over the limit. However, she did have to pay a $1,000 fine and spend another $1,000 to get under the savings limit."The Yale Free Press



2. How, exactly, did Mrs. Capetillo accumulate the vast sum of $3,000 in savings?

a. She had shopped at thrift stores, stocked up on sale items in grocery stores....bought second hand clothes during the summer, and warm-weather outfits during the summer.

b. When her five-year-old daughter's t-shirts grew tight, she simply snipped them under the arms,...

c. When she asked for 'Li'l Miss Make-Up' for Christmas, Mrs. Capetillo didn't pay $19.99 at Toys-R-Us, she found it at Goodwill for $1.89; she cleaned it up and tied it with a pink ribbon.

d. At Goodwill, she found the pieces for Mr. Potato Head, and bought them for seventy-nine cents, saving $3.18.
Her reward from the welfare system was being sued for $14,545.
"The Tragedy of American Compassion," p. 42, by Marvin Olasky





* That is the kind of responsibility that the current system penalizes, careful use of one's assets, savings, behaviors that might get one out of the welfare trap...*...instead the impersonal nature of the welfare system and it's built-in Liberal 'we'll take care of you' structure produce life-long dependency.



The challenge:
what, exactly does this system accomplish outside of enlisting the 'poor' as 'reliable Democrat voters'?


----------



## whitehall (Apr 6, 2015)

Lobster and Sushi. It's not even a bill yet and the wording isn't even finalized but the radicals are already doing a war dance. Hysteria about this proposed obscure bill is better than trying to defend Obama's policies that have actually increased food stamp use. Actually the proposed bill would be in line with Mrs. Obama's crusade to eliminate stuff like chips and energy drinks from everyone's diet and the author of the proposed bill says it is not his intent to ban all seafood and steak and that the wording needs to be "tweaked" so calm down lefties and consider the important issues for a change.


----------



## Meathead (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


I remember you mostly from Reagan threads where you claimed to understand the collapse of the USSR better than the likes of Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa. Things like that lend themselves to the perceptions of you as a little bitch and the accompanying bitch slaps.

All this could be avoided by not...wait for it...being a little bitch.

Cheers


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...


OK, in short, you could not find a post where you actually bitch slapped. Now run away shithead.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 6, 2015)

Our government lost all respect for taxpayers


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 6, 2015)

How the conversation seems to have change for all those little libbies who were thumping the tubs not so very long for Moochelle's scheme to government mandate what people were allowed to eat!

I wonder what happened......


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 6, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



I'm advocating using food stamps and welfare as a leg up; you are advocating it as a leg to stand on.

Ben Carson's mother was on welfare and food stamps.  She got off of them too.  That's the kind of success that most on welfare/food stamps should strive for, but unlimited assistance and generational assistance = not happening.

You're the one who sees getting people off of welfare and food stamps as them 'suffering'. Self-sufficiency and depending on oneself should be the goal, not seen as some kind of  punishment.  Derrr.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 6, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> How the conversation seems to have change for all those little libbies who were thumping the tubs not so very long for Moochelle's scheme to government mandate what people were allowed to eat!
> 
> I wonder what happened......



If a leftist wants to tell them what to eat they think it's great.  If a Republican wants to do the same?  zomg, they are the devil!


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

Zoom-boing said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


 
Most people on food stamps do get off of them

In many of our communities, there is little opportunity to get off of them

Get a job is useless advice when there are no jobs


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

Zoom-boing said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


You make it sound like Carson's mom was of welfare and food stamps on her own. Ben Carson was raised on welfare and food stamps. Of course he has an excuse.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 6, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?


I think the person who wrote the title is making shit up.  They are not being banned from buying steak.  The proposal is to further limit the types of things that can be bought with food stamps.  Most states already have the limit that you can't buy booze or cigs with foodstamps.  It's a stupid idea anyways.

Foodstamps have always been a stupid way to help people eat.  You want to give food handouts, give them access to city water, city power for a stove and a fridge, a sack of potatoes, a bag a beans, a bag of rice, some canned meats, flour, sugar, salt, eggs and milk.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 6, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Get a job, means find or make a job.  Useless is the act of pretending there are no jobs in a world where work is limitless, unbounded, infinite....


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 6, 2015)

Look folks, it's from the dnc WashingtonCompost. so who the hell knows if it's true or not

disgusting pos PRAVDA rag

and if you don't believe it. I live in Missouri and I haven't heard anything about this. 

so believe who you want I guess. the Compost is nothing but a mouth piece for the DEMOCRAT PARTY


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


 
Great advice!

With 30 million Americans receiving government assistance, can you point to data showing that there are 30 million unfilled jobs or any time that 30 million new businesses were created so we can get these people off welfare?

Once you have done that ...we can start your plan


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 6, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


The reason million Americans are on welfare, is we are giving them welfare.  People like free stuff.

As I said, you want proof that there are 30million unfilled jobs out there.  What I'm telling you is that there is an INFINITE NUMBER OF UNFILLED JOBS OUT THERE.  Your problem is your mind is constricting you.  You can't even conceive of the idea of you yourself creating a job for you yourself.  Not in a million years do you think someone could just come up with a job on their own.  By your view all these jobs just grow on the job tree and you either grab one or are left out.. ROFL


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 
Easy ....show me

Show me 30 million unfilled jobs out there for welfare families to take

You want them to create there own jobs?  *Show me any time in history when 30 million successful businesses were created in a year*



*.*


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



That is our "entitled" citizens of today and what will be our downfall. Just look at the over reactions in the thread about wanting to LIMIT what they buy..I can't even afford Steak in this Obama economy


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Apr 6, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The left wants to control everyone but gets their panties in a twist when the tables are turned on them


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 6, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It's easy to look "compassionate" when they crow about those poor poor people...We saw their compassion on display over some frikken State law and a poor old pizza parlor


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Why not use food stamps for seeds and plant the seeds for food?


what do they eat until the crops come in?....


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 6, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Why not use food stamps for seeds and plant the seeds for food?
> ...



hell my guy been on medical leave from open heart surgery. and we've been considering beanie weenies on rice and top roman. a lot of it


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


is that heart healthy?....


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 6, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



I agree it takes two to make a baby and both are equally responsible to support that baby.  That causes me to ask why, as an outsider to the situation, I and many others are forced to do for those that we weren't part of making?  If it's the responsibility of those two, why do the rest of us get their bill?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...


its not shameful to accept help if you truly need it....


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 6, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



probably not. but we can't afford to be heart healthy at the moment..


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 6, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



that's the thing Harry, IF has become a word of the past with the food stamp program. Just like every other government entitlement and we the taxpayers and our families are having to pay by limiting ourselves anymore
That's what grates on me the most...these people whining on republicans might limit their steak and seafood intake...I mean my goodness


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 6, 2015)

Zoom-boing said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Well, then *perhaps the Republicans should get out of their swimming pools and create jobs to get people back to work and off welfare*.  If you people can't be bothered to do that, then you have no one but yourselves to blame.  That said, do you have any statistics that show that 50% of the American people are on welfare?  No?  Right.  You made it up.
> ...



Right.  So you agree that there is no one to blame but yourselves.  Obama's policies have been creating jobs despite the efforts of you conservatives to defeat him at every turn.  But obviously, the more the merrier, so get off your backsides and create some jobs, help get people off welfare.


----------



## Boss (Apr 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Do you think that the vast majority of people on welfare want to be on welfare?  Because my experience tells me that they'd rather be doing just about anything else but asking for help.



Yes, I believe that. Your experience is based on simple-minded naivete. People on food stamps are on them because they filled out the forms, jumped through the hoops, did the interviews and provided their financial information to the government and voluntarily signed up for them.  How can you say they don't want to be on them? Their actions seem to clearly indicate that's exactly what they wanted. 



> So when you say "those you forced to fund", I have to point out the rather selfish attitude that portrays.



Why is that selfish? It's the absolute truth! We are all forced to fund this if we're working and paying our taxes like most productive citizens. It's not a selfish attitude, it's just an honest assessment of the situation. 



> My experience also tells me that the poor are having a hard enough time without having to deal with draconian measures and people who consider them to be, if not second class citizens, then not worth the bother.



But no one has said anyone is second class or not worth the bother. Those are assumptions you are making because people have a different opinion than you. We need some draconian measures to deal with a bloated government handout program that is being exploited and abused to the tune of billions per year. This is but one of a plethora of reasons why we're $18 trillion in debt and rising. Newsflash: Draconian measures are a coming whether you like them or not. 



> If someone on welfare wants to buy themselves or their child a steak from time to time, who are we to tell them they cannot?  Would you prefer that they instead spend that money on much less healthy food, because when you look at the relatively tiny amount of aid they receive, the food they can afford to buy with it is usually very unhealthy, and that unhealthy food is almost always what they end up purchasing..



I would say that we are the ones buying their food... that's who we are! I would prefer they not spend my money or anyone else's money because these people obviously lack the skills to handle money well. I would prefer we see a return of the old commodity trucks. This was where government surplus food was dispensed to the poor in a controlled and organized way. Basic food staples were available, there was no "luxury" about it, the food was nutritious and healthy. So see? I don't want the poor people to do without and starve! I'm compassionate! I care about them, they're worth the bother! 

And perhaps... just perhaps..;. the motivation of having to eat gritty government peanut butter instead of the premium brand, might be enough to get the occasional un-motivated poor person off their ass? If you want to eat steak and lobster and have nice shit, you need to get off your ass and go earn it like everyone else. If you're poor, you don't get to do that stuff... there's lots of stuff you don't get to do! That's why it sucks so bad to be poor. 

Try to think of it in these terms... welfare is finite, there is only going to be so much money we can throw at the poor. For every dollar that is wasted today by food stamp recipients on steaks and lobster, that represents a child in the future who is going to starve to death because there was no more money left. Should we start running around claiming liberals who want to waste and squander our resources don't care about future starving poor kids?


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 6, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



The process can't get started without her willingness to do so.  Nothing disgusting about recognizing the root cause.  Unless it's rape, which is a different issue, a man can do to her what it takes to get pregnant unless she agrees.  

Since those on your side of the aisle regularly hold those of us having nothing to do with the process financially responsible through taxes, I felt it was OK to ignore the other person involved much like you do.  If you bleeding hearts would make as much effort going after him as you do the taxpayers when he doesn't pay, this isn't a conversation that takes place.  

My kids are doing with less because I'm expected to pay more in taxes for some kid I had nothing to do with creating.  It's not a matter of me making money.  It's a matter of more of it being taken.  You missed that one totally.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 6, 2015)

In years past someone would rather chew off their arm and eat it than beg off the taxpayers through government assistance...PRIDE was one reason

NOT TODAY...they brag about how MUCH they can get while only having to work part-time


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



It's called seeing the abuse with my own eyes.  

When are those citizens that don't pay income taxes going to start meeting their responsibilities as citizens?


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 6, 2015)

but when you have a party in Government putting out this TYPE of Propaganda
well you see why we are where are today about ready to fall into the gutter


----------



## BULLDOG (Apr 6, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Speaking of panties, is that a pair of yellow ones hanging on that shamrock?


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Can I put my address for help on this thread?


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 6, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> In years past someone would rather chew off their arm and eat it than beg off the taxpayers through government assistance...PRIDE was one reason
> 
> NOT TODAY...they brag about how MUCH they can get while only having to work part-time



So now you are expecting poor people to eat their own limbs?  Wow, what an unimaginable  asshole.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...


Once a church gives to the needy do they wait around to make sure it is used correctly or are those that  receive, free to do as they need?


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > In years past someone would rather chew off their arm and eat it than beg off the taxpayers through government assistance...PRIDE was one reason
> ...


No, she is explaining why she has no right arm...of left check...on the butocks, cause the sweet meat is in the rump...


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> but when you have a party in Government putting out this TYPE of Propaganda
> well you see why we are where are today about ready to fall into the gutter


 
Which of those programs that help Julia are you proposing to eliminate?


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Apr 6, 2015)

We've all stood behind these welfare people and watched them stack T-bone steak high on the conveyor belt and also tons of convenience foods.  Too damn lazy to mash there own potatoes, they have to have instant which costs ten times per serving.  I'm getting sick of watching this waste of my taxes.

Anybody ever see a skinny welfare momma or welfare male who wasn't big and muscular?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> We've all stood behind these welfare people and watched them stack T-bone steak high on the conveyor belt and also tons of convenience foods.  Too damn lazy to mash there own potatoes, they have to have instant which costs ten times per serving.  I'm getting sick of watching this waste of my taxes.
> 
> Anybody ever see a skinny welfare momma or welfare male who wasn't big and muscular?


 
I know

I helped a welfare mother load champagne, caviar, lobsters and filet mignon into her Escalade the other day

Then I went home on my bicycle and ate franks and beans in front of my black and white TV with rabbit ears


----------



## BULLDOG (Apr 6, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...




I felt the same way when I had my first heart attack. I was too proud to accept any help. My family unnecessarily suffered for my pride, and it made the next one more likely. You should reevaluate your priorities.


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> We've all stood behind these welfare people and watched them stack T-bone steak high on the conveyor belt and also tons of convenience foods.  Too damn lazy to mash there own potatoes, they have to have instant which costs ten times per serving.  I'm getting sick of watching this waste of my taxes.
> 
> Anybody ever see a skinny welfare momma or welfare male who wasn't big and muscular?


Instant potatoes are more expensive than real ones? I thought they were cheaper. Guess it depends on the type of potatoes you like.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 6, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> I helped a welfare mother load champagne, caviar, lobsters and filet mignon into her Escalade the other day
> 
> Then I went home on my bicycle and ate franks and beans in front of my black and white TV with rabbit ears



So the rabbit ears were a snack before or after the main meal?

Salted or unsalted?


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > I helped a welfare mother load champagne, caviar, lobsters and filet mignon into her Escalade the other day
> ...


I've had pig ears. Never tried rabbit ears.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> We've all stood behind these welfare people and watched them stack T-bone steak high on the conveyor belt and also tons of convenience foods.  Too damn lazy to mash there own potatoes, they have to have instant which costs ten times per serving.  I'm getting sick of watching this waste of my taxes.
> 
> Anybody ever see a skinny welfare momma or welfare male who wasn't big and muscular?


 
Their kids are frequently pretty skinny.

And they're skinny when they're meth cooks.

What people resent is the fact that working people have to scrimp and budget and eat meat only 1x a week...and we stand in line behind these people who are continually bawling about how there's no work (how odd that we always find a way to work) and who don't have to cut corners at ALL when it comes to their food budget....unless they waste all their foodstamp allotment feeding their druggy friends and their kids, then want more at the end of the month.

I've fed my family of 3 on less than a single person on foodstamps gets in a month. It makes me sick.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> Instant potatoes are more expensive than real ones? I thought they were cheaper. Guess it depends on the type of potatoes you like.



Seriously, the relative cost depends upon where you are.

Unprocessed potatoes are largely water with some unusable peel.  If you've shopping somewhere near where potatoes are grown then the cost of shipping the water and peel to you is so small as to make them cost much less than the instant ones.

But if you live somewhere, say 1,000 miles away from the nearest potato field, then the instant spuds cost about 2/3s LESS than the unprocessed ones.


----------



## chikenwing (Apr 6, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Ya so and its still much cheaper,what your point?


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

chikenwing said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


If they do not allow steak then no hamburger, it's ground steak.......I hate to say this but ,,,duh!


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Instant potatoes are more expensive than real ones? I thought they were cheaper. Guess it depends on the type of potatoes you like.
> ...


I know little about the subject. At one time I used the instants when backpacking. Heck, I could make them edible just by adding water and what ever spices I was carrying. Didn't even have to heat them. Great for when it was pouring down rain and you just want to fill your gut with carbs. I'm fond of the more expensive varieties nowadays. Especially the little baby potatoes. and Yukon golds.


----------



## Scorpion (Apr 6, 2015)

One other item that, in my opinion, should be disallowed.
In-store bakery sheet cakes. 
As much as $50 for a cake.
How many meals could be bought for that $50?
Get a couple of boxes of Betty Crocker, eggs, oil and frosting.
Pretty simple and cheaper with in-store products or using coupons


----------



## chikenwing (Apr 6, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


duh ground beef is still much cheaper,the steak that makes it into GB is old and out of date.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

chikenwing said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...


That's why I don't buy it....


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

chikenwing said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...


It isn't old and out of date. If it was it would stink and be discolored. It can be fresher than the steak you are buying, or the same freshness because it is made (butchered) at the same time and maybe even the same side of beef. Ground beef is made from less popular cuts of beef and trimming from when the beef is butchered into various cuts. Some of these trimmings are made into beef cubes for stew and some are made into GB. The toughest cuts go straight to GB unless they are specially ordered by chefs and others who know the time consuming methods to cook them.


----------



## BULLDOG (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...




Now you have done it. You presented him with facts, and he will be dizzy for hours.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 6, 2015)

Small govt cons want an approved list of items...maybe they can create a new dept like the Dept of Homeland Scarf and Ingestion


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Small govt cons want an approved list of items...maybe they can create a new dept like the Dept of Homeland Scarf and Ingestion


 
When one gives to charity, one generally chooses what one gives.

So yes, we would like foodstamps to only be used reasonably, on a short list of available foodstuffs.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

chikenwing said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


 
Actually, burger isn't always cheaper than other cuts. I have gone to the store and purchased cross cut rib roast at a LOT less than the lowest hamburger price. And there's little to no fat in the roast.

Since I'm not on foodstamps, I have to actually take these things into consideration when I'm shopping under the constraints of a miniscule food budget.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 6, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


ROFL Why should I do the work of 30million people?  It's not my job to invent 30million jobs for 30million people.  It's their job.  

How about you show me how your war on poverty has eliminated poverty.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 6, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Why not use food stamps for seeds and plant the seeds for food?
> ...


You're right planting wont work.. they should buy mcdonalds instead.


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Ya, it is insane. I see burger all the time for more than other cuts of beef. I have an old hand cranked meat grinder I use for making sausage, but I will on occasion use it for burger, especially when I am having company and grilling burgers. No way I will pay the high price of burger when I can by a few cuts of cheap meat and a solid chunk of roast and make my own for a fraction of the cost. And it taste better. The trick is the amount of fat and running it through the grinder multiple times to make sure it is blended to the max.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 6, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Most people are on welfare don't really need the help, they just need someone to kick them in the ass.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...


I actually purchased a meat grinder for just this purpose..but as of yet have not used it, lol. Primarily because I so seldom can afford ANY cut of beef. We live on pork and chicken.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Plus all that land welfare people live on it should be easy to plant food


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

I had extensive training in EBT as a First Data (Cardservice International) agency owner.   As it turns out, most of the "steak and lobster" purchases are at the end of a SNAP recipient's time in the program.  They've either found work or become disqualified from further benefits and blow out the last month's money on a celebration.  This can be stopped or the money recouped by ending the benefits on the same day as the recipient got his first paycheck instead of the last calendar day of the month.  

Nothing is more infuriating to see in a grocery line but it's a drop in the bucket of fraud in the SNAP program.   Any merchant caught selling forbidden items or trading EBT for small cash gets a TMF (terminated merchant file) and loses his ability to take any credit or debit card....ever again.   Once a merchant has a terminated account, he can only take cash or checks (without verification) so report what you see...the store will likely be closed in a matter of weeks unless a new owner (not a wife or relative) is found.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 
Thats not what I asked

I'm just trying to help you prove your claim

Show me any point in history where 30 million new businesses were successfuly started then we can consider your plan as a possiblity

Otherwise we need to call it total bullshit


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 6, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



What land would that be?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> I had extensive training in EBT as a First Data (Cardservice International) agency owner.   As it turns out, most of the "steak and lobster" purchases are at the end of a SNAP recipient's time in the program.  They've either found work or become disqualified from further benefits and blow out the last month's money on a celebration.  This can be stopped or the money recouped by ending the benefits on the same day as the recipient got his first paycheck instead of the last calendar day of the month.
> 
> Nothing is more infuriating to see in a grocery line but it's a drop in the bucket of fraud in the SNAP program.   Any merchant caught selling forbidden items or trading EBT for small cash gets a TMF (terminated merchant file) and loses his ability to take any credit or debit card....ever again.   Once a merchant has a terminated account, he can only take cash or checks (without verification) so report what you see...the store will likely be closed in a matter of weeks unless a new owner (not a wife or relative) is found.


 
I worked in social services for years and I promise you, the cardservice people don't know shit about the programs...and I further promise you...snap recipients buy that stuff for parties and then come back to the DHS offices whining about the fact that their foodstamps have run out about 3 weeks into the month, claiming that they aren't getting enough.

I would cry with joy if I had $367 a month to feed my little family....and I've never in my life spent more than $500 on food...but a family of 6 (and I've cooked for a family of 6 and more) gets around $800 a month.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

I remember calling the card service people when our ebt machine broke down. I got non-English speaking people in a variety of different countries, and none of them knew jack about anything. It was quite an experience.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 6, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


Eggzactly.


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Upper left corner where tree is planted. Looks like space for a tomato plant.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I dunno but the person who suggested they farm seems to think they have a lot


----------



## rdean (Apr 6, 2015)

Do Republicans always fall for the most ridiculous shit?  People on food stamps aren't going to waste the entire months supply on one day of eating large when they are supporting children.  What the fuck is wrong with you people?  You believe any right wingnut bullshit that comes along.  Next, you'll be telling us that God runs the weather and vaccines cause autism and the earth is only thousands of years old.  Jesus Christ you people have problems.  The ignorance is simply too, too much.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> I worked in social services for years and I promise you, the cardservice people don't know shit about the programs...and I further promise you...snap recipients buy that stuff for parties and then come back to the DHS offices whining about the fact that their foodstamps have run out about 3 weeks into the month, claiming that they aren't getting enough.
> 
> I would cry with joy if I had $367 a month to feed my little family....and I've never in my life spent more than $500 on food...but a family of 6 (and I've cooked for a family of 6 and more) gets around $800 a month.



  Well, since First Data processes most of the credit/debit/EBT services in the US, I can assure you it's you who doesn't know shit about our merchants.   The loss prevention department at FD is staffed by ex-LA bunko detectives who take a very active interest in EBT transactions.  You can say what you want about smaller acquiring agencies like Payment Tech but we know what we're doing and our merchants know better than to play with us.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> I remember calling the card service people when our ebt machine broke down. I got non-English speaking people in a variety of different countries, and none of them knew jack about anything. It was quite an experience.



Bullshit....Cardservice International (First Data) isn't some "card services"...you should STFU.

BTW, the agency the store bought or leased their equipment from isn't the processor.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 6, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


ROFL ... funny as hell.  You're right everyone should quit their jobs right now and go on welfare cause there's no proof that their jobs will last forever.

Then we'll just all stand around and do absolutely nothing, cause doing nothing works great for everyone!

You're right a system in which people actually work to produce something that other people are willing to pay for and then we exchange money that we earned to buy products,... that system is total bullshit, it can't possibly work better than your welfare system that pays people to not produce anything.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 6, 2015)

orogenicman said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I find planting on concrete and stones doesn't work very well.  Much easier where there's some dirt for the seeds to germinate in.  Here's a photo of a place where you can plant stuff.  Just avoid the small concrete islands.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 6, 2015)

Typical con response.  Offers a solution but has no details or follow thru except a map of America.  Good work


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Apr 6, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.





jknowgood said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



*So there needs to be SNAP police roaming the grocery store aisles....*


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

Speaking of topsoil, I read the other day it takes 100 years to create an inch of top soil....so here's a math problem...how many years would it take to cover a dinosaur down to a depth of 5,000 feet where most of the older oil wells are at?  "fossil fuels" my ass.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 6, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Typical con response.  Offers a solution but has no details or follow thru except a map of America.  Good work


Ok.  I'll give you the steps.  Get a pencil.

1) walk or ride a bike to a place where things might actually grow. (see the green stuff on this map I already provided) if you live in texas, even the poorest folk just have to go out back or out front.  Not sure where you folk all live but from that concrete jungle pic, you might want to find a more hospitable place first.
2) borrow a shovel
3) clear a spot for your new plant with your borrowed shovel
4) follow the instructions on the seed bag
5) give the shovel back
6) harvest
7) eat.

You may have to switch steps 1 and 2, and you may have to walk or ride back sort of depends on your situation.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I remember calling the card service people when our ebt machine broke down. I got non-English speaking people in a variety of different countries, and none of them knew jack about anything. It was quite an experience.
> ...


My point is, CARDSERVICE INT'L has no clue about the cardholder situation/particulars. The ONLY people who have access to that particular information are the DHS workers and their partners. Cardservice Int'l is essentially a bank that manages the account from which the ebt funds are issued. They have NOTHING to do with eligibility or monitoring eligibility status or certification periods, and they do NOT keep records that have anything to do with eligibility.

They are not privy to ANY of the narratives or any of the information about the snap households.
If someone told you they were, they were either lying, or engaging in a huge and very illegal scam. The people who put in the machines and hook the cards up with the government money have NOTHING to do with the eligibility. They have zero interaction with the clients and zero access to DHS records, except for very specific screens that drive the issuance of benefits.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> My point is, CARDSERVICE INT'L has no clue about the cardholder situation/status. They are not privy to ANY of the narratives or any of the information about the snap households.



And we couldn't care less about the cardholder as long as it's a legitimate card.  It's the merchant's responsibility to run his business and avoid fraudulent transactions.  If we don't like the looks of the transaction or the card information doesn't match our perimeters, the transaction will be declined.  More than 3 of these in a month and the merchant gets looked into.   As of 2008, more than 16,000 merchants who were TMFed applied for reinstatement....3 were given a reprieve.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 6, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> its not shameful to accept help if you truly need it....



It used to be.  People used to have a great sense of humility when they needed a helping hand and the shame they felt was a great motivator in helping them to get off of being on the receiving end of a hand-out.  Now, the majority of people don't seem to flinch and they feel entitled.  It's bullshit.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



You people are fucked up.


----------



## orogenicman (Apr 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Brilliant.  



I challenge you to walk up to a homeless guy on the street asking for food, show him your picture, and then suggest that he farm.  Good luck with that.


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 6, 2015)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.
> ...


Nope just enter it in the computer so that expensive cuts of meat can't be bought with a snap card.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

Most of the SNAP transactions involving junk food come from their high caloric content....pretty hard to get enough energy to attempt a carjacking and a footrace with the cops eating carrots and spinach.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > My point is, CARDSERVICE INT'L has no clue about the cardholder situation/status. They are not privy to ANY of the narratives or any of the information about the snap households.
> ...


 
Make up your mind, you said that cardservice were the ones that told you that the ebt cardholders who were getting a crapload of expensive food were doing it at the end of their cert periods.

Not true.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Most of the SNAP transactions involving junk food come from their high caloric content....pretty hard to get enough energy to attempt a carjacking and a footrace with the cops eating carrots and spinach.


 Plus who has time for all the prep when you're running from the po po?


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Make up your mind, you said that cardservice were the ones that told you that the ebt cardholders who were getting a crapload of expensive food were doing it at the end of their cert periods.
> 
> Not true.



Of course it's true....the average EBT recipient has around $5 a day for food...lobster and steak are so far out of reach it's a non-issue.   In order to SELL our EBT services wouldn't you concede that we know a little more about the system than you  (a clerk) does?  C'mon.....


----------



## Gracie (Apr 6, 2015)

Junk food should be on a list. FS are for people who need the extra help in eating...not stuffing their face with soda pop, chips, ice cream, cookies, candy.

FS should be for chicken/poultry, ground beef or pork, certain types of red meat, vegetables, fruit, tortillas, bread, milk, cheese, rice, soup, crackers, etc.

No steak. No lobster. No shrimp. No scallops.  No junk food.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 6, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Ah!  The Compassionate Conservatives!  Why not put a caldron of gruel on the town square and call it a day?
> ...


Uppity bitch should have been flogged for trying to escape the plantation.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

Gracie said:


> Junk food should be on a list. FS are for people who need the extra help in eating...not stuffing their face with soda pop, chips, ice cream, cookies, candy.
> 
> FS should be for chicken/poultry, ground beef or pork, certain types of red meat, vegetables, fruit, tortillas, bread, milk, cheese, rice, soup, crackers, etc.
> 
> No steak. No lobster. No shrimp. No scallops.  No junk food.



A gallon of milk costs $3, a big bottle of soda $1.50....which do you think a welfare mother will buy?   Vegetables are the most expensive item in most inner-city stores and you know how kids are about vegetables...hell, I only eat veggies a couple times a week and I'm a grown man.   You can't get the Dept of Agriculture to ban certain foods in a free-enterprise economy.  As long as it's not booze, cigs, or deli items, it's acceptable food.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Most of the SNAP transactions involving junk food come from their high caloric content....pretty hard to get enough energy to attempt a carjacking and a footrace with the cops eating carrots and spinach.


They will be healthier and loaded with vitamins....


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Gracie said:


> Junk food should be on a list. FS are for people who need the extra help in eating...not stuffing their face with soda pop, chips, ice cream, cookies, candy.
> 
> FS should be for chicken/poultry, ground beef or pork, certain types of red meat, vegetables, fruit, tortillas, bread, milk, cheese, rice, soup, crackers, etc.
> 
> No steak. No lobster. No shrimp. No scallops.  No junk food.


Hamburger is ground steak,,,see how silly it is?


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> BullKurtz said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the SNAP transactions involving junk food come from their high caloric content....pretty hard to get enough energy to attempt a carjacking and a footrace with the cops eating carrots and spinach.
> ...


Why yes, those Catholic priest better watch their backs...


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Zoom-boing said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > its not shameful to accept help if you truly need it....
> ...


No, it's a shame game...


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.
> ...


With a shoot to kill order....


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


You can plant those in a planter pot...


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

The major problem is families with 2 adults and 5-6 kids....Here in Arizona as of 2008, when I left First Data, all persons in the home are treated as equal consumers of food so it's obvious that should be reworked......kids don't eat much but need more nutritious food so it's still out of balance.  The benefits are based on several factors including the state average income, inflation rate, and any income that might be coming in.   The reporting has to improve.   I believe the program here in Arizona now monitors the family checking account....don't declare income and you're looking at a cutoff and jail time.....we don't play with EBT fraud.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 6, 2015)

I buy T-Bone & Porterhouse Steaks for $4.99/lb at Save-A-Lot. It's cheaper than hamburger at other stores. So now poor people can't buy good food even when it's cheaper than crappy food? Most people on food stamps have jobs & work for a living.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > Junk food should be on a list. FS are for people who need the extra help in eating...not stuffing their face with soda pop, chips, ice cream, cookies, candy.
> ...


 
That is not true!

This is a topic I know from both sides.

Yes milk costs $2.79 a gallon if you buy it in the right place BUT you use milk to cook and for breakfast....and if you buy DRIED milk at the beginning of the month you are set. It isn't yummy to drink, but you can make pudding and gravy and anything else that requires milk out of it (including breakfast drinks).

CARROTS and potatoes are almost free. I bought a 45 lb bag of carrots for my family about 9 months ago, I think they cost $8, and we still have carrots, and we eat them, too. No, most people are not crazy about eating the same thing every day, day in and day out...but that's what budgeting is about. Eat to live, don't live to eat. We eat the cheap stuff. That means we eat carrots (thankfully the kids like them) and we eat potatoes. We do not eat arugula and asparagus or organic rutabagas. We don't eat a lot of mushrooms. We eat ICEBURG LETTUCE and CABBAGE. And if you maintain that potatoes, carrots, iceburg lettuce and cabbage for a family of four for a month is more expensive than soda pop and frozen pizza, you're delusional. I know, I deal with this every single month.

We don't eat meat every day. We don't eat meat every other day. We fix one meal with meat maybe 1-2 x a week, and we use the leftovers for lunches and the carcasses and bones for soup and beans.

We NEVER buy steak, unless I find some really super cheap sirloin that's past it's date (I happen to like it better then, it's more tender. I've cured my own meat, the longer it sits the better). When I am concerned the kids aren't getting enough protein (and I'm concerned about it often) then I make them eat legumes and a grain (beans and cornbread, for example..beans and rice...beans bean beans) and hope that it will suffice as a complete protein.

THAT'S how you feed a family on a limited income. There is NO WAY that people on welfare should be eating better than people who bust their asses to put food on the table. There is no way that people like me should be forced to starve their children so that our government can keep our unworking class fat and complacent.

The last two weeks of last month, I fed my kids beans and one chicken, potatoes and eggs. And carrots. That's what we lived on for TWO WEEKS. And I'm not *eligible* for foodstamps. But assholes who have never lifted a finger in their lives, who say things like "I'm a stay-at-home mom, my kids are that important" call their workers up screeching "HOW CAN I FEED MY FAMILY ON $200 A MONTH??? There are 2 of us! That's not enough!!". I feed my family of 3 on $150 on a pretty regular basis. We eat about like you'd expect us to eat...monotonous boring food, day in and day out. No steaks. No sheet cakes from the bakery for birthdays (hell no). No lobster, ever. My kids have never tasted lobster. Some months, no beef to speak of. Yes, you can feed your children a healthy diet on a really slim welfare budget. I could feed 3 families for a month on the full 3-person foodstamp allotment.

And we can sure as shit tell the dept of Ag that we don't want to fund pizza pockets for the poor. Farmers will find a way to survive.  BTW..yes, you can get deli items on ebt. You just can't get HOT deli items. You can also get Subway and Papa Murphy's.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

rdean said:


> Do Republicans always fall for the most ridiculous shit?  People on food stamps aren't going to waste the entire months supply on one day of eating large when they are supporting children.  What the fuck is wrong with you people?  You believe any right wingnut bullshit that comes along.  Next, you'll be telling us that God runs the weather and vaccines cause autism and the earth is only thousands of years old.  Jesus Christ you people have problems.  The ignorance is simply too, too much.



First they have to sell that they are wasting the money
Then they can justify cutting it


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



So your solution is bullshit like I said


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> The major problem is families with 2 adults and 5-6 kids....Here in Arizona as of 2008, when I left First Data, all persons in the home are treated as equal consumers of food so it's obvious that should be reworked......kids don't eat much but need more nutritious food so it's still out of balance.  The benefits are based on several factors including the state average income, inflation rate, and any income that might be coming in.   The reporting has to improve.   I believe the program here in Arizona now monitors the family checking account....don't declare income and you're looking at a cutoff and jail time.....we don't play with EBT fraud.


 You're so full of shit. You think you know a lot about the program and you don't.

It's a federal program, and it's the same state to state.
There's a system called simplified reporting that means the only time they have to report their income is if it goes over 130 percent of the federal poverty level (and they are told what that amount is for their household at intake). If they are between 130-185 percent of the fpl at eligibility determination, they don't have to report when their income goes up. They have a grace period until the next time they are obliged to report...at recert or at interim (6 months into a cert period).

A family of 6 is eligible to receive up to $925 per month in foodstamps. It's an exorbitant amount, and there is no family of 6 that needs to spend that much on food. A family of 7 receives up to $1022. It's freaking ridiculous. And I have seen plenty of families that actually bring that in. They live in a heap with relatives, they don't have to pay for anything, and they get this ridiculous amount of money for food every month. They fritter it away, but it costs the rest of us.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

I have yet to see anybody go to jail for foodstamp fraud. In all my years working in human services, I've seen one person actually prosecuted for it..and it was blatant and long-term fraud where a woman was claiming that her disabled relatives and friends were living with her, and getting their checks and their snap benefits when they were really wandering around in the cold.

The worst that happens is they get an intentional violation, and if they continue to receive foodstamps, the feds get their money back by *garnishing* their foodstamp allotment, about $10 per head per month. Woo hoo.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> That is not true!
> 
> This is a topic I know from both sides.
> 
> ...



Why do you keep picking fights with me?  You've gone from telling me I don't know anything about EBT after I sold the program to dozens of merchants to how you survive on a limited diet.    This is the second or third time you've come out of a bag at me.  The information I post about EBT is from the processing part of the transaction to information I was taught to profile the average beneficiary.  Of course there are differences in 50 states, demographics, income levels....a myriad  of problems and success stories.   Imagine those people not being able to eat at all and then envision what would happen.  I know if I couldn't feed my family, I'd take somebody else's food or money for food.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> You're so full of shit. You think you know a lot about the program and you don't.



Okay that's it,  bitch.  Run your insults at somebody else you fucking hag.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > That is not true!
> ...


 
You're spreading misinformation and pretending you have insight into the program that you absolutely 100 percent don't have. I'm not picking a fight. I'm correcting you. Sorry you can't distinguish.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> You're spreading misinformation and pretending you have insight into the program that you absolutely 100 percent don't have. I'm not picking a fight. I'm correcting you. Sorry you can't distinguish.



You're a low-rent moron pissed because you can't get the benefits you'd deny others.  I made my position very clear and you ignored it to attack me.   That's it.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...


back when we used to have to deliver food stamps there were more than one person i felt pretty sure was gaming the system....


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You're spreading misinformation and pretending you have insight into the program that you absolutely 100 percent don't have. I'm not picking a fight. I'm correcting you. Sorry you can't distinguish.
> ...


 
You have a crap position and you defended it with lies about the program, then you claimed *inside knowledge* to try to hide the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Bottom line:

Simplified Reporting System...you don't have to report changes in income, unless they go over a certain point.
Food stamp recipients are just as capable of stretching a food dollar as anybody else, if they were so inclined. They aren't, because they get more than they need, and are under the misapprehension that there's always more available for them.
And the meme that it's "more expensive" to eat healthy is a lie.

I think that covers it. Now go sulk somewhere else.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> I think that covers it. Now go sulk somewhere else.



Kiss my ass....I think anybody without an agenda sees my position and understands it.   You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground...just ignorant myths is what you're peddling.   You're a loser and not worth my time and be advised, this is the last time you don't get the full can of whoop-ass....I won't be civil with you again.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 6, 2015)

Missouri law bans Foodstamps for a can of Tuna

Republicans outraged


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> We've all stood behind these welfare people and watched them stack T-bone steak high on the conveyor belt and also tons of convenience foods.  Too damn lazy to mash there own potatoes, they have to have instant which costs ten times per serving.  I'm getting sick of watching this waste of my taxes.
> 
> Anybody ever see a skinny welfare momma or welfare male who wasn't big and muscular?



*Anybody ever see a skinny welfare momma or welfare male who wasn't big and muscular?*

i have quite a few times....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 6, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?



I don't see seafood and steak as luxury items. Energy drinks, cookies, etc. might be frivolous though.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 6, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.



Last week I bought chuck steak for less than hamburger costs per pound. I oppose food stamps, but I don't support limiting legitimate food.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > We've all stood behind these welfare people and watched them stack T-bone steak high on the conveyor belt and also tons of convenience foods.  Too damn lazy to mash there own potatoes, they have to have instant which costs ten times per serving.  I'm getting sick of watching this waste of my taxes.
> ...


you should apply for aide RW.....dont be ashamed.....


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I think that covers it. Now go sulk somewhere else.
> ...


 You don't have a *position*. All you've posted is a bunch of nonsense.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

Bottom line....as long as DemocRATS win elections they will put their supporters in positions to help their voters ie administer the welfare state.  Remember that the next time a McCain or Romney is the candidate and GOPers stay home because he ain't Reagan.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> All unhealthy food should be off the list. Red meat is not a healthy source of protein.



ROFL

You're a fucking idiot.

Beefsteak is about the best source of protein there is.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> You don't have a *position*. All you've posted is a bunch of nonsense.



You're too busy dreaming up insults to read what I said...your agenda is a loser profile.  The "nonsense" you're referring to is so far over your head you'd need binoculars to see it, witch.


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 6, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.
> ...


If that's the case you could put it in the computer. I'm talking about high priced meats like ribeye or strip steaks.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


mostly sweet potatoes and yams for me.....


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Bottom line....as long as DemocRATS win elections they will put their supporters in positions to help their voters ie administer the welfare state.  Remember that the next time a McCain or Romney is the candidate and GOPers stay home because he ain't Reagan.


Hardly, Oblama has turned more control back to the states to put out guidelines....Mizzouri is not only debating food restrictions but job requirements and length of help, capping it at 5 years...


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 6, 2015)

Tomorrow is the day when the Kroger stores in my area give 10% discounts on all house-brand food items to we "seniors".  A day when one might expect to see a higher percentage of food-stamp users shopping to make their money buy more. 

But that doesn't happen.

However my wife and I will be there early and pretty well fill a cart spending an amount we consistently spent each "first tuesday" for donation to the local food bank where she does some volunteer work.

We use two carts.  One of which is for the food bank purchases; the other for things we regularly use from the range of house-brand products.  

Point of that two carts is that we buy the same type goods (house brands) for donation and for our own purposes.

That brings us to the experience working in the food bank.  When the volunteers observers see a "basket" filled exclusively with name-brands odds are very high that the recipient will carry them out and put them in the trunk of a new or near-new luxury sedan.  The mixed baskets tend to go into older vehicles, particularly pickup trucks, or get carried off in cloth sacks carried away by a person on foot.

Recently there was a bit of a flap when one of the volunteers loudly offered:  "LET ME HELP CARRY YOUR BOXES OUT TO YOUR LEXUS".  It wasn't so much the offer that caused the upset - rather, the slow clap that echoed through the shop.  

I wonder if she'll be back next month!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 6, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> I eat about five pounds of red meat a week.
> 
> I am 66, 6'4", 185lbs, and pretty damned healthy.
> 
> Hasn't hurt me a bit, as far as I can tell.



No, but it's the reason you're 6'4" and 185.

If the leftists have their way, everyone will be 5'3 and 310 lbs.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough said:
> ...


Try taro root...


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You don't have a *position*. All you've posted is a bunch of nonsense.
> ...


 
I haven't insulted you. You see it as an insult when I point out where your info is incorrect, and I can't help that.  However you've called me names in about half a dozen posts. And "Your agenda is a loser profile" doesn't even make sense.

You sound like maybe you're slamming heroin. I suggest you just say no.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


yep.....i will buy sirloin burger over the 30% shit....ground Turkey is getting popular.....ground Bison is the best....


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 6, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > All unhealthy food should be off the list. Red meat is not a healthy source of protein.
> ...


But, but, you are starving poor Africans if you eat beef.

Fuck 'em.

I'm going to eat my five pounds of beef and two-three pounds of chicken each week, and live as long a God has planned.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > I eat about five pounds of red meat a week.
> ...


 
Naw. Once they have everybody dependent on gov't food, they'll take it from the people. That's where we're headed.

It's already happening. The allotments are going to more and more people....the next step is for government to take control of the production of food..then they will withhold it from the people.

That's how this stuff has historically gone down.


----------



## rdean (Apr 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Why are you saying something so fucking stupid?  If you want people to believe you are stupid, OK, it worked.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > I eat about five pounds of red meat a week.
> ...


So the leftist will make everyone overeat and become obese, oh my, it's already happened...


----------



## hjmick (Apr 6, 2015)

Steak is bad for you...


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> mostly sweet potatoes and yams for me.....



I didn't like sweet potatoes as a kid...wrong color...now I eat em when I can find ones that aren't huge....too sinewy and tough....but one the same size as Idaho spud...man alive....with proper butter and salt, they're tasty...still the wrong color but tasty.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 6, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> [
> 
> *I haven't eaten meat in more than 30 years* and I don't shop at Walmart so no, I don't know if the meat is glued together.
> 
> ...



I'll bet that's what caused your brain to atrophy, assclown. Lack of protein left you a drooling moron.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...


Yea, I read about it in American history class....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


until the crops come in?....


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

hjmick said:


> Steak is bad for you...


 
I think we'd be better served if we just said no highly processed foods....chips, frozen single servings, stuff like that.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


That time used to be called the starving season...


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


 We all know you don't read, poothrow.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Steak is bad for you...
> ...


The program is not designed to serve you.......


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> I haven't insulted you. You see it as an insult when I point out where your info is incorrect, and I can't help that.  However you've called me names in about half a dozen posts. And "Your agenda is a loser profile" doesn't even make sense.
> 
> You sound like maybe you're slamming heroin. I suggest you just say no.



I suggest you get laid....might do wonders for your anger issues.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...


still doesnt negate what i said.....if you truly need help ....seek it


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't insulted you. You see it as an insult when I point out where your info is incorrect, and I can't help that.  However you've called me names in about half a dozen posts. And "Your agenda is a loser profile" doesn't even make sense.
> ...


 
He said angrily.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Yes I do, with braille....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 6, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> If that's the case you could put it in the computer. I'm talking about high priced meats like ribeye or strip steaks.



Steak is the loss leader out in California. Every holiday weekend all of the stores put in on sale. Ribeye and NY (bone in) are $5.99 every holiday.

With hamburger tipping $7 a pound, steak is often cheaper.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


Need money, no hope without dope, send money SOON!


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

hjmick said:


> Steak is bad for you...



If you grill it ya might as well admit you'll be looking at cancer in the 4th quarter.  I'd rather eat raw meat than charred meat.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> BullKurtz said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


You know how truck drivers are....


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> BullKurtz said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


You are awfully cranky here.

I think you have a tube steak deficiency.

My bro don't slam heroin, Hell I can't even get him to smoke a joint.

You seem really ragged out, perhaps some heroin might do YOU some good.

Jeez.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara (Apr 6, 2015)

I don't see the problem with them buying seafood or steak.  Both can be very healthy choices compared to junk food and fast food.   I'd encourage everyone to strive to eat healthy, no matter what class they are.​


----------



## Boss (Apr 6, 2015)

chikenwing said:


> duh ground beef is still much cheaper,the steak that makes it into GB is old and out of date.



*sigh* This is just not true. Ground beef is mostly made from the meat left over when they cut premium roasts and steaks. It is not "out of date" or "less fresh" than any other meat in the cooler. There are various mixtures of fat-to-lean and ground beef is certainly distinguished from ground chuck, which is ground steak, or actually, ground chuck roast. 

The only 'health' difference in ground beef and other cuts of beef is the processing itself. Ground beef is three times more likely to carry food-borne bacteria because of going through unclean grinders. 

None of this has much to do with the OP, and it's a shame that some people had rather derail the topic to talk about hamburger meat, but that's the Joy of USMB, I suppose.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 6, 2015)

KissMy said:


> I buy T-Bone & Porterhouse Steaks for $4.99/lb at Save-A-Lot. It's cheaper than hamburger at other stores. So now poor people can't buy good food even when it's cheaper than crappy food? Most people on food stamps have jobs & work for a living.



Filet mignon and lobster are not $4.99/lb and no, those on FS should not be able to purchase those foods, or junk food, with FS.  If they want them they can pay for them out of pocket.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 6, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> yep.....i will buy sirloin burger over the 30% shit....ground Turkey is getting popular.....ground Bison is the best....



Turkey pisses me off though. I bought a 5lb Jenny-O chub on the weekend, damned thing was at least 50% water. They can cheat more on the ground turkey than the ground beef, it holds the water better. I do prefer it in spaghetti though.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Steak is bad for you...
> ...


I've gone to stir frying my NY strips with good vegetables, and using things like Thai peanut sauce.

Been eating really well, it isn't that hard, and you don't have to eat rabbit food to get by on $8-10 a day, including coffee, which has gotten outrageous of late.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 6, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> [
> So the leftist will make everyone overeat and become obese, oh my, it's already happened...



When you replace lean meats with rice and beans, people become obese. The idiot left pushes people to a carb rich diet. Tofu (bean curd) and rice, white bread, pealed potatoes, etc.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 6, 2015)

hjmick said:


> Steak is bad for you...


Bullshit.

Just plain bullshit.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 6, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Missouri law bans Foodstamps for a can of Tuna
> 
> Republicans outraged



Canned tuna often contains mercury and eating it on any type of frequent/regular basis is not a good idea.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


What is wrong with peeled taters?
My grandparents and parents ate beans, rice, gravy fried foods, yet were not obese or overweight...It also has something to do with portions and activity levels....


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Zoom-boing said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Missouri law bans Foodstamps for a can of Tuna
> ...


Only if you want to use yourself as a thermometer...


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > duh ground beef is still much cheaper,the steak that makes it into GB is old and out of date.
> ...


The best way to eat hamburger is to buy the meat and grind it at home.

Not that I always follow my own advice, but I doubt I eat two pounds of ground beef a year.

If I want something with ground meat, I kill a deer.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 6, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> BullKurtz said:
> 
> 
> > hjmick said:
> ...



Make a Thai spicy beef salad sometime - good stuff.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 6, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> I don't see seafood and steak as luxury items. Energy drinks, cookies, etc. might be frivolous though.



Flounder, cod, etc. and lower cuts of steak aren't luxury; filet mignon and lobster are.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 6, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > yep.....i will buy sirloin burger over the 30% shit....ground Turkey is getting popular.....ground Bison is the best....
> ...


I bought a whole one, paid out the ass for "fresh never frozen" and the goddamned thing was all fat.


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 6, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > If that's the case you could put it in the computer. I'm talking about high priced meats like ribeye or strip steaks.
> ...


I know, I remember not long ago buying ground beef for .99¢ a pound if you bought at least 3 pounds. All I see is ground chuck now.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> Tomorrow is the day when the Kroger stores in my area give 10% discounts on all house-brand food items to we "seniors".  A day when one might expect to see a higher percentage of food-stamp users shopping to make their money buy more.
> 
> But that doesn't happen.
> 
> ...



My Kroger store in Phoenix is Frys.....$1.99 1% milk is what draws me in.....and they have the senior discount first Wednesday of the month but I've only hit that 10% off once (last week).  There was a time I couldn't care less about my grocery prices because I usually had little in the fridge but pizza and beer.  When my metabolism slowed down, that couldn't last.  I've been eating healthy for about 3 years now and feel great....I even learned how to cook....my wives could burn a salad...professional women who thought cooking a meal was a violation of their civil rights.   My current GF is a good cook but she can't touch my chili or mushroom chicken.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 6, 2015)

Zoom-boing said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Missouri law bans Foodstamps for a can of Tuna
> ...


FUN FOOD FACT!

Eating support living, which leads to death.

Shit, we are omnivores, we can live on anything.


----------



## Roadrunner (Apr 6, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Chuck is beef.

WTF am I missing here?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 6, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > yep.....i will buy sirloin burger over the 30% shit....ground Turkey is getting popular.....ground Bison is the best....
> ...



I only buy the 85% lean/15% fat turkey.  Much more flavor, much less dry.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 6, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



zomg, we're all gonna die!!!!


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 6, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Ground beef has more fat, than ground chuck. You don't know the difference in meat?


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> You are awfully cranky here.
> 
> I think you have a tube steak deficiency.
> 
> ...



To be fair my Brother forgets how many joints I've smoked and how much ginkgo I've had to eat to undo the damage.  Ma always said  RR could lose half his brain cells and still me smarter than me.


----------



## fujin (Apr 6, 2015)

People on food assistance can't win. If they buy junk food, they get judged. If they buy healthier (but more expensive!) food, they still get judged. It's food, for God's sake. Honestly, who cares what food they buy with it? It's still the same amount of money.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > BullKurtz said:
> ...


 Your bro is a know-nothing douche who gets off on pretending to have inside information that he just doesn't have. He's some sort of low-level tech for the company that manages the ebt card account..but he has no clue about the program itself. I've given both of you lots and lots of kudos and reps, but I have exactly zero tolerance for big mouthed, chauvinistic assholes who get butt-hurt when a woman knows more than they do about something..and resort to the sort of nasty misogynistic bs that he's sinking into.

If that's the way you want to roll, go for it. Neither of you counts as any sort of a man in my book if that's the way you want to play.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

hjmick said:


> Steak is bad for you...


if you eat it all the time maybe......


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > mostly sweet potatoes and yams for me.....
> ...


and better for you....


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

fujin said:


> People on food assistance can't win. If they buy junk food, they get judged. If they buy healthier (but more expensive!) food, they still get judged. It's food, for God's sake. Honestly, who cares what food they buy with it? It's still the same amount of money.


 Those of us who have to scrimp and feed our children garbage care because we're funding them to eat like freaking kings.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


ask Katz....im sure she will help....


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> fujin said:
> 
> 
> > People on food assistance can't win. If they buy junk food, they get judged. If they buy healthier (but more expensive!) food, they still get judged. It's food, for God's sake. Honestly, who cares what food they buy with it? It's still the same amount of money.
> ...


They are eating pate?


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


Better send it or I will violate the civil rights of a ghey person...


----------



## Boss (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> This is a topic I know from both sides.
> 
> Yes milk costs $2.79 a gallon if you buy it in the right place BUT you use milk to cook and for breakfast....and if you buy DRIED milk at the beginning of the month you are set. It isn't yummy to drink, but you can make pudding and gravy and anything else that requires milk out of it (including breakfast drinks).
> 
> ...



Excellent post! I wanted to do more than "thank" this, it deserves a USMB Emmy. 

From a different perspective.. I'm a guy who doesn't live on a budget, I am single and have enough to live comfortably, so I pay no attention to what I spend in an average month on groceries. I eat what I like, which isn't really extravagant. Sometimes, I will want a nice T-bone or shrimp but I tend to have a lot of frozen dinners I can pop in the microwave and not have to cook. When I do cook, I tend to go all out and make things like lasagna or spaghetti, or a pan of enchiladas. I like big honking breakfasts with biscuits and gravy, applewood bacon, farm fresh eggs and real butter... the works! Now and then, I get a craving for a good Reuben, so I go out and buy all the stuff to make them and feast out. In short, I don't have any limitations on what I spend for food.  
That said, I have a close personal friend who gets food stamps. She was bragging the other day about how she now has about $600 worth of available funds built up... she gets $190 a month and lives alone like myself. Just out of curiosity, I went to my online bank statement and tabulated what I spent the past few months on groceries. I averaged $210 a month. Now, I am a smart enough person to know that the difference between my spending habits and "the bare necessities" is much more than $20. 

But the whole problem here is the mentality of the political class who is seemingly in charge. The Liberals and establishment GOPers, want to continue pushing this idea that Federal Government is there to take care of everybody. That I am somehow obligated, as a citizen of Alabama, to care for a poor family in California. I have a civic obligation to concern myself with the needs in my community, perhaps even in my state, but I shouldn't be expected to care for the world. That's not MY obligation.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > This is a topic I know from both sides.
> ...


 
Foodstamps were conceived of to prevent women and children from STARVING when their husbands were away at war, or out of the home looking for work cross country. They aren't meant to alleviate all need to budget, nor are they meant to provide for every culinary desire of a non-working family.

For people who work..they are meant as nothing more than a SUPPLEMENT. And for people who aren't working, they are meant to be enough to stave off starvation. A family of 6 doesn't need $925 a month to stave off starvation.

And what's more..they don't use it to stave off starvation! They sell the excess (and sometimes the rest too) for cash and drugs.

They should either be restricted in what they can buy..or better yet, we should just reduce the amount they receive by about 1/2. Trust me, living on potatoes and beans for a year is pretty motivating for most people. But you know your country is fucked when it's the people who work their asses off who have to live on potatoes and beans...while their tax dollars go to buy steak and full sheet birthday cakes for people who refuse to even look for a job.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 6, 2015)

Then we can count you out as being Christian....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 6, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


like this one?.....


----------



## Camp (Apr 6, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > All unhealthy food should be off the list. Red meat is not a healthy source of protein.
> ...


No, you are the idiot for not knowing about the connection between red meat and cancer, heart disease and diabetes to name just the major prominent diseases. Even pro beef experts recommend only 3  4 oz servings of lean beef per week.  And there is as much protein in chicken and fish per oz as beef. Heck, two spoons of peanut but have as much protein as an oz of beef.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Your bro is a know-nothing douche who gets off on pretending to have inside information that he just doesn't have. He's some sort of low-level tech for the company that manages the ebt card account..but he has no clue about the program itself. I've given both of you lots and lots of kudos and reps, but I have exactly zero tolerance for big mouthed, chauvinistic assholes who get butt-hurt when a woman knows more than they do about something..and resort to the sort of nasty misogynistic bs that he's sinking into.
> 
> If that's the way you want to roll, go for it. Neither of you counts as any sort of a man in my book if that's the way you want to play.



No hag, I was the OWNER of a First Data agency after a long career as a sales manager with Cardservice International.  I know a low-income clerk mentality when I see one...never hired one because behind your back they act like you do....full of piss and vinegar but low on snap (hey a PUN)....I would imagine any of my rookie sales guys went into the field knowing more than you ever will about the EBT program...you're just another angry woman in a grocery line who got turned down from the program because you make just above the poverty line.  No reason I should take any shit from you....I tried to be diplomatic but that's a language you call weakness.  I pity those who you go home to at night.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Your bro is a know-nothing douche who gets off on pretending to have inside information that he just doesn't have. He's some sort of low-level tech for the company that manages the ebt card account..but he has no clue about the program itself. I've given both of you lots and lots of kudos and reps, but I have exactly zero tolerance for big mouthed, chauvinistic assholes who get butt-hurt when a woman knows more than they do about something..and resort to the sort of nasty misogynistic bs that he's sinking into.
> ...


 

You don't know what you're talking about, and you were exposed.

And that makes you doubt your manhood. Which in turn makes you angry. Which in turn causes you to lash out at the women who oppress you.

I get it.

But I don't feel sorry for you, men like that are scumbags.

To recap:

People on foodstamps don't have to report every income change.
Cardservice agents do not have access to the determining factors of ebt card holders, they just do what is coded by DHS workers. They can see where money is being spent and view the cert periods..but they have no way of telling how that relates to eligibility overall. They do not keep records of who is spending what at what point in their eligibility, and if they do, they are committing a felony and would be shut down posthaste by the feds.
You are LYING when you make the claim that your posturing has any basis in fact. It's just your own assumptions based on what is borderline (or maybe not borderline) illegal data mining, and has nothing to do with the program itself..because the people who manage the nuts and bolts of the ebt cards don't have that authority or access to information.

But I always knew you were a bunch of retards, lol.

I can repeat this all day and night if you like. I like to expose angry frauds.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


 
Oh no, it's an anti-beef hysteric.

You guys are so nuts.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> You don't know what you're talking about, and you were exposed.
> 
> And that makes you doubt your manhood. Which in turn makes you angry. Which in turn causes you to lash out at the women who oppress you.



I wouldn't let you "oppress" my pants with a steam iron....probably burn them like you do every dinner you cook.   Once again you live for the last word and then likely stomp out and slam the door, your saggy old ass quivering from the end of your adrenaline rush.   It's always entertaining to see a fishwife like you go all "chauvinist" on your betters.  Frankly, I have enjoyed you embarrassing yourself in this thread.  It seems something about me triggers RAGE in you....maybe I remind you of the one who got away that you compare your husband to each and every paycheck he brings home.  I know you...there's thousands of you hating the negro woman because her kids get snack food while you serve week-old moldy chicken......and that's the secret spice in your recipe....racism with a touch of sour grapes.  bon appetite hag.


----------



## Care4all (Apr 6, 2015)

You can get Lobster for $2.99 to $3.99 a pound all summer long here where I live, with a local Lobster shack near by...it's much cheaper than buying sirloin steak up here....and I would suppose a good steak is cheaper in Cattle Country than Lobster would be.

I can't wait till Summer! ( Actually I'd be happy with Spring.....it is snowing again right now.... so sick of it....)  I want my Lobster, darn it!


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

Care4all said:


> You can get Lobster for $2.99 to $3.99 a pound all summer long here where I live, with a local Lobster shack near by...it's much cheaper than buying sirloin steak up here....and I would suppose a good steak is cheaper in Cattle Country than Lobster would be.
> 
> I can't wait till Summer! ( Actually I'd be happy with Spring.....it is snowing again right now.... so sick of it....)  I want my Lobster, darn it!



I bought 2 pounds of breaded shrimp for $10 a couple days ago....easily four adult servings, delicious, and full of nutrients.  All a person on welfare or otherwise has to do is keep their eyes open and clip coupons if they're so inclined.  I watched a black guy present a cashier a couple dozen coupons a few weeks back....while the others in line were getting fed up with it, I enjoyed him showing the gumption to save as much as he could....he wasn't your stereotype black thug...just a middle-aged guy trying to get the best price he could.


----------



## Care4all (Apr 6, 2015)

We have charity food banks up here, for the poor who do not qualify for extra gvt assistance/food stamps, or it is not enough...and they have been running low on food because of all the additional people needing help.  Food is very very very expensive up here all winter long...in the summer prices go down, but are still much higher than most of the nation, (other than local items such as Lobster or shrimp or Halibut, potatoes, blueberries, cranberries, maple syrup)


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 6, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


That's correct RW all the workers of the world that are not on welfare is complete bullshit.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

Care4all said:


> We have charity food banks up here, for the poor who do not qualify for extra gvt assistance/food stamps, or it is not enough...and they have been running low on food because of all the additional people needing help.  Food is very very very expensive up here all winter long...in the summer prices go down, but are still much higher than most of the nation, (other than local items such as Lobster or shrimp or Halibut, potatoes, blueberries, cranberries, maple syrup)



I'm from southern Michigan and just realized the other day I haven't been buying maple syrup in the Log Cabin bottle...it's corn syrup dyed to look like the real thing....ticked me off!  So I went hunting for maple syrup and it was $11 a bottle at Wallys!  WTF?  We tapped our own maple trees and the guy at the house across the street gave us back the syrup for me shoveling snow off his sidewalk after the bad storms.   Now that I've said that I have to buy the good stuff no matter what they charge.


----------



## Care4all (Apr 6, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > We have charity food banks up here, for the poor who do not qualify for extra gvt assistance/food stamps, or it is not enough...and they have been running low on food because of all the additional people needing help.  Food is very very very expensive up here all winter long...in the summer prices go down, but are still much higher than most of the nation, (other than local items such as Lobster or shrimp or Halibut, potatoes, blueberries, cranberries, maple syrup)
> ...


We are in season right now and the Maple trees are all being tapped.... supposedly we are going to have a good Maple syrup season here this year....Vermont is known for its Maple syrup in New England, but I bet cha Maine gives them a good run on the money for that number one spot?

Yes, no other way to go but the real deal!!!  Maple syrup all the way!


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 6, 2015)

Care4all said:


> I'm from southern Michigan and just realized the other day I haven't been buying
> We are in season right now and the Maple trees are all being tapped.... supposedly we are going to have a good Maple syrup season here this year....Vermont is known for its Maple syrup in New England, but I bet cha Maine gives them a good run on the money for that number one spot?
> 
> Yes, no other way to go but the real deal!!!  Maple syrup all the way!



It's all in the BOIL...the old guys in Michigan used to argue how to do the best boil...We gave our neighbor buckets of clear sap and he gave us back a couple bottles of syrup.   The pros have clear hose running from their trees into a central collection pot...we only had 4 maple trees but they were hearty and their leaves turned that bright sugar maple red in fall...we'd do a 5 block curb burn both sides of the street...try that these days and the EPA would have you thrown into Gitmo.


----------



## Boss (Apr 6, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> They should either be restricted in what they can buy..or better yet, we should just reduce the amount they receive by about 1/2.



Well the problem with the amount is that cost of living is so dramatically different from place to place. It's just not a good idea to try and fund a social program federally, and that should be what we are debating here. Instead, we're playing this stupid "good guy-bad guy" routine with bleeding heart liberals who know how to do that best. 

I understand there are people in society who fall through the cracks, who can't hold down a job for whatever reason, maybe it's mental health or physical health or just circumstances of who they are and how they've been raised? But we have millions of them and let's face it, no one is going to let anyone die in the street of starvation. 

So we can all agree that some level of humanitarian aid is in order, but it shouldn't be what it is currently, it's way too much. Most of the problem is not the amount but how it is being spent. You see, we hand the financial responsibility over because liberals insist this is some matter of "dignity" for them, but they can't fucking manage money, that's why they are poor! Why the hell are we giving them, basically, a credit card and free will? Why isn't there some sort of oversight or supervision in place? Well, because that would cost a lot of money to do, and there's the "dignity" thing. 

I would get rid of the SNAP (food stamps, EBT) and WIC programs altogether. replace them with either Commodity centers or trucks for rural areas, and let people go get a "care package" each week or two. I guarantee we'd be able to provide for every food stamp or WIC recipient at about half the current cost or less. No one will starve, people won't have to go without food. Meanwhile, we stretch our resources out which makes them last longer... this is not rocket science. 

But the Liberals.... they have a different viewpoint about money the government spends. They envision Washington D.C. as this big giant endless pile of money from all the rich bastards... it just never ends, we never can run out, and if we do we can just print more as we need to or squeeze the rich bastards more. Money is simply not an object to the Libs. Of course, in such a fantasy universe, you can be as benevolent as you please! Hell, Lobsters and Steak for everybody!


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 7, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?



Damn right.  Why should we allow them to buy healthy food like steak and fish when they can purchase processed frozen dinners that will make them fatter so they will cost us more in the long run when we have to pay for their medical bills.    I just can't figure out how it is that supposedly well educated people can be so fucking stupid.


----------



## Care4all (Apr 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > They should either be restricted in what they can buy..or better yet, we should just reduce the amount they receive by about 1/2.
> ...


Nice post until your last paragraph of useless imaginary "liberal boogeyman" made up crap!

Each State does handle their own welfare programs, and each State is different from the next....  they just take the the Feds money to pay for half, the State pays the other half and the State institutes their own rules.

It would cost a lot less, if there could be a pick up place for food, or trucks to come to each neighborhood or a Meals on Wheels type thing....even though sending out trucks seems expensive, when you look at all the "middle men" that get their "cut" of the money spent on food welfare....  the grocer, the manufacturer, the farmer, the Banks that supply the EBT cards are even getting their cut.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 7, 2015)

Hamburger will cost more than steak if this passes. When the recession hit, hamburger prices here went up 400% within a year, but steak prices dropped 30% because hamburger was a by-product of steaks that was sold at a loss. Now demand drove hamburger prices through the roof because the explosion of unemployed & working poor could only afford the cheapest crap . This was a huge punch in the gut for poor people while the rich who caused the disaster get a break. Even the BLS price index shows hamburger is up 130% while steak is only up 30%. Unless some of the working poor are allowed or can afford steaks, hamburger will cost the same or more than steak.

Hamburger Prices




Steak Prices


----------



## Politico (Apr 7, 2015)

Camp said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


No I am stating that WIC says meat and eggs are bad but fake cheese is good.


----------



## Camp (Apr 7, 2015)

Seems like folks want to run away from admitting who the culprit is and ignore the easy solution. The problem won't be resolved because of the middlemen and mainly, the big grocery stores and processed food industry. There is already a system in place that regulates the types of food that can be purchased. It is called WIC and it selects and labels foods available for expecting mothers and infants. The entire system of food distribution could and should be operated the same way. The food distribution system for the poor could and should provide healthy foods at low cost and force recipients into being educated about healthy nutrition and budget shopping. The poor become educated simply by being limited in their purchasing to these kinds of selections in their buying abilities with the food assistance program.


Politico said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


Each state is different, but I know of no state that does not allow eggs in it's WIC program. Jarred meat baby food is usually allowed and so is canned fish such as tuna. I know of no state that allows for imitation cheese, but perhaps you know of one that does.


----------



## EverCurious (Apr 7, 2015)

As to the OP, I am not ready to definitively say that the removal of steak from poor people's diets is necessarily the best course.  To my knowledge red meat historically gave us humans surplus energy to drive higher brain function.  Certainly those who cannot support themselves could benefit from such regardless, and more so if one argues that they lack the /skills/ to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps."  -- I personally tend to lean toward there being a physical lack of jobs thanks to modern technology, advances in medicine, and the common-place introduction of women, blacks, and illegals into the job market.  (This is not to say I do, or do not, support any said changes, but rather speaking from a sheer numbers perspective - the working populace has increased exponentially, and as more people come into more available money and the demand for perceptively limited resources rises, prices will increase as well.) 

Seafood, I am told, is good for the heart and joints -- my nutritionist often admonished me for lacking seafood in my diet and has me taking fish oil supplements.  Which brings me to related point, I am by no means poor, but my diet is... admittedly abnormal (though I must say cheap by some comparisons I have seen of SNAP benefit's given in this thread - my daily average is $5 a day including soda... and I live in Alaska with one of the highest COL's and food prices in the country.)  Ultimately though, I have zero desire to support ANY precedence for the government's dictation of what one may or may not eat. I do not believe that being poor should enable, nor allow, such over-reaching - regardless of any nutritional proofs.  It is imo simply wrong for a government to tell their people what they may and may not eat. (And yes, I realize I've already lost that personal opinion all over the damn place in recent years.)

I would much prefer to err on the side of caution and, perhaps foolish, hope for education, than to categorically deny steak and seafood to the poor, nor anyone else, and worse to do so based on a somewhat selfish and egotistical opinion that, if I am /forced/ to give to charity, I then have the right to /rule/ over such personal decisions. -- That is a mighty high horse if you ask me.  While I might concede that perhaps better choices could be made, I still believe that choice should be /encouraged/ through education, rather than dictated by anyone. 

Plus it brings forth debate of on whom's basis do we dictate such/diet?  I'm no expert, but I'm fairly certain the dietary needs of each person are different just from my daily life; while I can be content on 250 calories a day, my husband, who shares a very similar lifestyle atm, needs at least 2-3k - we have vastly different metabolisms, I don't get hungry, he's always hungry, etc.  Similar differences hold true through my children, my parents, and even my friends.  The UN claims that the /minimum/ is 1.8k calories a day, but I can guarantee you that is NOT the case for me and I've had a similar low-calorie diet almost my entire life - it has not held me back in _any_ aspect of my life (save for the fish oil which I take mostly for my arthritis, and purportedly could have staved off the symptoms had I taken it earlier in my life.)

Frankly, coldly, even if one wishes to argue based on a personal distaste for such forced charity, let them eat their twinkies and die early off your dime.  One can lead a horse to water...




The rest is mildly OT: I am admittedly naïve on details for welfare programs.  My only experience is that I had a casual friend in High School who received WIC when she became pregnant, but obviously that was over 20 years ago and things have likely changed.  As far as I am aware it only paid for prenatal care so I'm not even sure it's a "similar program" or whatever, but I saw it mentioned in the thread.  I pretty much lost touch with her when she dropped out and I went to college.  Small town rumor is she died of a cocaine overdose some 6 years, and 5 children, later.)  But I digress.

I have traditionally, purposefully, distanced myself from the politics of welfare believing that a) my opinion would be biased in a number of ways, and b), perhaps foolishly, believing that the program /was/ operating as a hand up, not a hand out; to which, I find some of the stories in here about fraud and abuse troubling (most specifically the resale of EBT cards.)  In any event, I'd like some details; 

Is there a back end?  Like do the case workers go over things like budgeting, clipping coupons, educating the recipients, etc?  The whole "give a man a fish" thing.  And if there /is/ such a back end, then what can we do to increase their effectiveness - as clearly a recipient stocking up on soda, chips, and candy is not likely to be following any good advice.  IF there is no back end like that, perhaps we can consider implementing such?  A two-fold "solution" in a way, we can hire /less/ skilled workers to recant from a website [perhaps even from their Obama-phones?] about basic budgeting, nutrition, and so forth - of course more skilled workers would likely need to handle special needs situations.  Would that not both, help with the unemployment issue, as well as give folks on welfare a better foundation for their budgeting?

Is there a way we can prevent the resale of EBT cards?  I know a lot of folks have issues with requiring poor people to acquire an ID (Though for the life of me I cannot understand their argument. I can't even leave the house without my USAA auto insurance card; to go out lacking any form of identification is simply unthinkable to me.)   Perhaps an on card photo similar to what Costco does or something?  It is, perhaps, a minor inconvenience for the cashier to glance at the photo vs the person purchasing, but I don't think it would be /that/ difficult for them to do and certainly the technology for such printing of cards is relatively cheap and easy these days.


----------



## Scorpion (Apr 7, 2015)

Politico said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


Meat us not an option on WIC.
Cheese must be in 8 oz or 16 oz blocks.
No sliced cheese and no American cheese 'food'.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 7, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> I suggest you get laid....might do wonders for your anger issues.



That's advice I think everyone should follow - each and every day....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 7, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > You can get Lobster for $2.99 to $3.99 a pound all summer long here where I live, with a local Lobster shack near by...it's much cheaper than buying sirloin steak up here....and I would suppose a good steak is cheaper in Cattle Country than Lobster would be.
> ...


aint nothing wrong with using coupons....i was behind a lady who's bill came to $130.00 and after the coupons she ended up paying $56.00.....


----------



## Camp (Apr 7, 2015)

Scorpion said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Each state has it's own list. I only looked at a couple of them to get the general idea. Here is the resource I used.

www.fns.usda.gov/wic/links-state-agency-wic-approved-food-lists


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 7, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> [I know, I remember not long ago buying ground beef for .99¢ a pound if you bought at least 3 pounds. All I see is ground chuck now.



That was before Obama.

Meat has quadrupled to quintupled in price since 2008.

Tofu is affordable though... 

I'm not saying this is deliberate social engineering, but as another poster pointed out, red meat promotes higher brain function; higher brain function results in independent thoughts and conservative views - the last thing the left wants.  Besides, soy beans are high in estrogen, making men the way the left wants them...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 7, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> like this one?.....



Leave Michelle Obama alone....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 7, 2015)

KissMy said:


> Hamburger will cost more than steak if this passes. When the recession hit, hamburger prices here went up 400% within a year, but steak prices dropped 30% because hamburger was a by-product of steaks that was sold at a loss. Now demand drove hamburger prices through the roof because the explosion of unemployed & working poor could only afford the cheapest crap . This was a huge punch in the gut for poor people while the rich who caused the disaster get a break. Even the BLS price index shows hamburger is up 130% while steak is only up 30%. Unless some of the working poor are allowed or can afford steaks, hamburger will cost the same or more than steak.
> 
> Hamburger Prices
> 
> ...



It's the Obama attack on the middle class, drive food costs up to reduce the purchasing power of the bourgeoisie that the democrats are obsessed with destroying. Remember, the left doesn't hate the rich, the left LOVES the rich - Soros, Pelosi, Tim Cook, Algore, et al. The left hates the middle class,  the bourgeoisie, those usurpers who attempt to have lives like the elite. democrats are dedicated to crushing the middle class and putting the middle into poverty.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 7, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You don't know what you're talking about, and you were exposed.
> ...


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 7, 2015)

Care4all said:


> We have charity food banks up here, for the poor who do not qualify for extra gvt assistance/food stamps, or it is not enough...and they have been running low on food because of all the additional people needing help.  Food is very very very expensive up here all winter long...in the summer prices go down, but are still much higher than most of the nation, (other than local items such as Lobster or shrimp or Halibut, potatoes, blueberries, cranberries, maple syrup)


 
Every food bank I've ever seen has the same income standards as the foodstamp program.

However there's a lot of lying that goes on, on the part of the recipients, and since foodbanks are primarily run by churches and Christians, they overlook it for the most part.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 7, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?


 
And what do we base the determinations of those items on?  We don't want them buying expensive foods, but we don't want them buying the cheap junk, either.  Exactly what is "acceptable" food for them to have?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 7, 2015)

Care4all said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


 
Food stamps is managed at the state level. But it's a federal program, funded federally and with federal oversight.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 7, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> timslash said:
> 
> 
> > That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> ...


 I think it's probably easier to just figure out what food they shouldn't be able to purchase with foodstamps.

Chips. Candy. Soda..things with zero food value, and that aren't going to make their lives HARDER. I mean, I appreciate that working moms once in a while want to have microwave dinners on hand for latchkey children, though those are expensive and have low nutritional value...I think it could (possibly) be a hardship for a working single parent if those were ruled out altogether. I don't have a problem with people purchasing cold case deli items either...lunch meats and cheeses are often less expensive there anyway, and the cold deli chickens are a fairly good buy and a great box lunch item. But if they want chips, and bakery items, they can find a way to fund those themselves. It isn't going to kill them or make their lives less meaningful if they do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 7, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.


 
Well, if you waste it, then you don't have any more for the rest of the month, and you get to find another way to pay for your food.  So what?  This is really just about resenting poor people for getting welfare, which I can understand, but I have no interest in reacting by trying to micromanage people's lives even further.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 7, 2015)

Camp said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


 
And who gets to decide and dictate to others what "healthy" is?  I'm sure you're creaming your jeans in anticipation of even more opportunity to tell people how to live.


----------



## Boss (Apr 7, 2015)

Care4all said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Thanks for the compliment and not the backhand slap. Nothing imaginary about liberal boogeymen, they are indeed real. The current administration is increasing our debt over $1 trillion per year on average. I've said this before and had doe-eyed liberals retort.. "so what, we spent a trillion dollars, big deal!" No... We spent a trillion more than we took in and we've been doing this for the past 7 years. Most liberals can't even comprehend the amount of a trillion. I've actually heard them argue that something should be done about "those rich billionaires and trillionaires!" Trillion isn't even a value anymore, it's just a word synonymous with greedy rich bastards who control all the wealth. 

In every debate with every liberal on the matter of social entitlement, there is never an ounce of concern over cost. It's always justified, there's always the promise of new taxes or mandates on business to pay for whatever liberals dream up that we need and gotta have. We can debate objectively about how to best help people in need, but when one side has no concept of budget and finance, where money simply doesn't matter, it's easy to be benevolent and generous while painting the adversary as cheap and cruel. And this happens every single day in the La-la-land known as Liberalism.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 7, 2015)

I stockpile cake mixes every month or so..I get them on sale, and I buy enough for one a week. I bought 10 dozen eggs this month..we usually go through 3-5 dozen a month, which costs about $8.  Eggs save our asses. If we have eggs, beans, potatoes, oil and cake mixes, we make out pretty good. I can make bread (and often do) and I always have boloney and peanut butter, and bacon (most of the time). With eggs  I can feed the kids for weeks on just those things. I haven't bought a bakery cake in years, because I just can't afford them. But we always have cake mixes on hand. I usually make the icing...powdered sugar and cocoa, a little evaporated milk (or water, or powdered milk and water) and butter (or not, meh). Jello! Jello has protein, and it's CHEAP. I buy the big ones when they're on sale, 10 boxes for $10. I make it as regular jello, which the kids love...or when they're squirrelly and tired of not having anything junky for a while..or when they're sick, I make it as a drink for them, and they love it.

My must haves:
potatoes (white and usually a few sweet)
beans
onions
sugars (brown, powdered, grandulated)
flour
oil
butter
cake mixes
jello
eggs
apples
oranges
canned fruit (whatever is on sale)

When I get meat I figure enough for one meat-based meal a week, plus one or two extra. So this month, I got some beef ribs on sale, a 2 or 3 lb package of burger, a package of chicken legs, a roast, and the easter ham.
Last month was a less lucrative month, we made due with much less meat. Probably less than 1/2 of what's listed there.
I buy tomatoes and ice burg lettuce at the beginning of the month, but of course they don't make it to the end.

I don't buy every item every month. I know what I have on hand, and I pounce on sales. It takes time to build up the pantry, especially when you clean it out regularly. Cabbage and onions are items that will last for months in the fridge if they don't freeze.

I can beans, potatoes, and veggies when I can so that even when I don't have money to buy yummy food, I can pull SOMETHING out of the cupboard. The canned potatoes are fairly gross but we fry them and eat them when we're hungry and we're out of regular potatoes.

A lot of my time is spent thinking about and preparing food for my family. If I had a lot of money for food, it would be a lot less time consuming...but the point is, it can be done, and people who are on charity SHOULD BE DOING IT.  But when they have to really think about it and budget, they start whining. I can't tell you how maddening it was  for me to be talking to women who get child support and rental assistance, who don't have to pay for child care, who receive more in foodstamps than I would know what to do with, boo hoo "I can't feed my family on that, how am I supposed to feed my family on that?" I wanted to tell them "omg are you shitting me?"


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 7, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.
> ...


Yep, and it's usually the child that hurts.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 7, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


 Progressives are always big on limiting the poor people's access to food, lol. "You don't need no stinking meat!" Sounds like something Stalin would have said to justify taking all the food from the starving masses, in order to sell it.


----------



## EverCurious (Apr 7, 2015)

hmmm so apparently food assistance in Alaska extends to buying "supplies for subsistence living"  I'd imagine guns and ammo, fishing poles and fish hooks, perhaps snow machines/four wheelers and gas, boats perhaps... I suppose that makes sense up here, and would argue the need for state management and regulation.


I'm also inclined to sound my agreement with Boss' commentary, our spending is out of control.  As a former 1%'er I can tell you that mismanagement can and will easily dry up even the supposed unlimited tap of the wealthy.  My mistake was trusting that our investments were soundly spread to resist the economic pits; it was not apparently enough, but I failed to recognize it a serious problem until it was too late.  We lost over a million dollars in the market in the past 6 years, and I did nothing, presuming that my financial fate was secure because it'd bounce back eventually, that it'd recover and rebuild itself...  Seem's humans in general do not realize their mistakes far too late to prevent calamity in the first place. 

While I had tossed enough off into other venues to live comfortably, I have to wonder if there even /is/ any possible venue of reserve that the US could even consider tapping once the wealthy have no more to give - or as many of my friends have done have fled the country under the hatred of the general populace.  Fair warning, there are MANY other countries that are quite happy to become home to wealthy ex-Americans; and a payout of tax is a much, much easier price to pay, than to bear the unrelenting despise of ones countrymen. 

Yes, yes, I know, no sympathy for the rich; because of course money can buy love, belonging, and respect as a fellow human being. /scarcasm


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 7, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > timslash said:
> ...


 
I think it's probably easier not to compound the problem of trying to nanny people by further nannying them and telling them what they can and can't eat.


----------



## Boss (Apr 7, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.
> ...



If Liberals had their way the federal government would micromanage every aspect of our lives. We have Michelle Obama mandating and micromanaging what our kids can eat for lunch, we have nationalized health care where government can micromanage all sorts of personal stuff under the guise of "affordable health care." We've got mandates on what kind of light bulbs we can use... what kind of toilets we can install... what kind of cars we can drive... the list goes on and on. I won't even get into the social issues that Liberals would simply cram down our throats and demand we accept or be castigated as bigots, racists, homophobes or whatever. And God forbid we should actually exercise religious freedom! 

We never hear liberals talking about where cuts need to be made, it's always more funding, more taxes, more bloated ineffective pipe-dream liberal programs implemented. When someone with common sense suggests where we might reduce the deficit by decreasing the built-in amount of annual increase in funding for a given program, that's turned into "draconian cuts that will starve kids and elderly folks!" Anything short of spending more trillions we don't have, is characterized as "uncaring and greedy!"  Hey... It's  so easy to do whenever your brain can divorce your mind  from the concept of monetary value.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 7, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> timslash said:
> 
> 
> > That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> ...


 
No business micromanaging.  I'll say it again.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 7, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


 
I don't see a problem with telling them they can't use government subsidies to purchase food with zero nutritive value. Just chips and pop and candy. Let them get whatever else they want. But if we're giving them the money, let's be realistic and limit how they can spend it. If they don't like it, they can get a job.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 7, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > timslash said:
> ...


 
So if we have a huge overfunded government subsidy program, we should just throw the money out the window?

Naw. It's charity. We should be able to dictate what it's spent on. We determined they couldn't use it for alcohol and ciggies, we can dictate it not be used for candy, pop and chips. Or bakery items. It isn't like you're telling poor people they can't buy those things. You're just telling them that's not what snap is for. And remind the American people that SNAP is meant to stave off starvation...not allow people to enjoy a standard of living they haven't earned and don't need.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 7, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> hmmm so apparently food assistance in Alaska extends to buying "supplies for subsistence living"  I'd imagine guns and ammo, fishing poles and fish hooks, perhaps snow machines/four wheelers and gas, boats perhaps... I suppose that makes sense up here, and would argue the need for state management and regulation.
> 
> 
> I'm also inclined to sound my agreement with Boss' commentary, our spending is out of control.  As a former 1%'er I can tell you that mismanagement can and will easily dry up even the supposed unlimited tap of the wealthy.  My mistake was trusting that our investments were soundly spread to resist the economic pits; it was not apparently enough, but I failed to recognize it a serious problem until it was too late.  We lost over a million dollars in the market in the past 6 years, and I did nothing, presuming that my financial fate was secure because it'd bounce back eventually, that it'd recover and rebuild itself...  Seem's humans in general do not realize their mistakes far too late to prevent calamity in the first place.
> ...


 
You can buy veggie and fruit seeds and seedlings with snap benefits.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 7, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > The main recipients of food stamps are children, elderly, veterans, disabled and of course, that most hated of all Americans, single mothers whose children's fathers have run out on them. Its very important to the right to punish people for being poor and to do anything and everything to keep them that way.
> ...


 
You'll be a lot healthier if you spend less time inspecting other people's grocery purchases and gnawing your liver out over them.  If you have a problem with welfare, have a problem with welfare.  Don't make it worse by saying, "I'll give you the fucking money, you damned leech, but I'm gonna keep you from enjoying it, by GOD!"  What a waste of time and energy and unnecessary complication just so you can feel vindictive.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 7, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Roadrunner said:
> ...


 
We're going to spend that money regardless of what those people spend it ON.  Do you really think there's any amount of fiddly, buttinsky rules that are going to make those people suddenly become health nuts and upstanding citizens beyond what they already are?

The issue is the program itself.  Focusing on, "Well, you're by God going to live exactly the way I think you should on that money" just perpetuates the mindset that it's acceptable for government to nanny and micromanage, adds confusion and waste to the system, and doesn't do a damned thing to change the people involved.  All it accomplishes is to let leftists feel smug and righteous and conservatives to love their rump roast because they're sticking it to the freeloaders.


----------



## Camp (Apr 7, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


It is called science, but common sense can tell you lots. And I am not suggesting people be told how to live. I am suggesting that when we give charity to to people we should have some control of how the charity is used. They can spend their own money however they want. If my money is being spent to feed your kids I should be able to insist you don't spend my donated money on soda and candy. If you don't like the rules don't take the donation.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 7, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


 
I used to think that way, I thought that if we're going to give it to them, just give it to them.

But the sticking point is this..they don't receive actual CASH. They are receiving what amounts to VOUCHERS for food. If the purpose of the foodstamp program is to stave off starvation, and NOT to enable the unemployed and derelict to achieve a higher standard of living than they are willing to pursue, why should we not tell them "You can't use this for these things because starving people who have access to less expensive food don't NEED these things....chips, soda, candy."

It's not that big a deal. The rest of us have to budget our grocery dollars, why should we give them access to non-nutritive garbage? You have to look at the PURPOSE of the program. The PURPOSE is to prevent starvation. They don't need chips, candy and soda to keep from starving. Let's stick to the PURPOSE of the program. Instead of saying "Well they get too much money but meh, they already get it so let's not exert any control over it".


----------



## Camp (Apr 7, 2015)

This issue is not a conservative or liberal issue. If you notice, this thread has posters who normally disagree on just about everything, agreeing on a pragmatic solutions for this particular issue. In some cases it seems like the people disagreeing are disagreeing out of habit without any real thought or direction. Liberals are sounding like conservatives and conservatives are sounding like liberals. Pragmatic solutions without ideological influence can be very confusing.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 7, 2015)

Camp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


 Exactly. 
I used to bristle at the thought of denying foodstamp recipients carte blanche when it came to spending their snap dollars as well, I was like "If it's legal for them, they should have the authority to spend it as they please".

Except that begs the question....what is the purpose of the program? The purpose of the program is to stave off starvation. If that's the purpose, then why are we providing empty calories that serve no purpose?

My change of mind came after having a series of involved discussions with a DHS program manager, over the course of 4 years. She said it wasn't a hardship and it wasn't micromanagement...this is CHARITY..and all the rest of us have to budget our food allotment, why should snap recipients be any different? Why should they be able to buy doritos and m&Ms and soda fountain pop..when those of us who are PAYING for their food can't afford them? That's just backwards and wrong.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 7, 2015)

I would actually much rather they just be given bulk food items once a month and skip the allotment altogether.

Give them 10 lbs of beans, 10 lbs of potatoes,  30 lbs of meat, a gallon of milk per household member,  a bag of rice, a bag of sugar, pasta, cheese, and canned or frozen veggies, flour, salt, eggs, and some baked goods mixes.


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 7, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> I would actually much rather they just be given bulk food items once a month and skip the allotment altogether.
> 
> Give them 10 lbs of beans, 10 lbs of potatoes,  30 lbs of meat, a gallon of milk per household member,  a bag of rice, a bag of sugar, pasta, cheese, and canned or frozen veggies, flour, salt, eggs, and some baked goods mixes.


They would never do that, they would lose their vote.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 7, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Since they are being supported by taxpayers and the taxes they don't pay, they shouldn't eat as well as the average taxpayer.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 7, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.



I'm yet to understand how someone demanding another person buy his/her food thinks that those forced to fund it shouldn't have a say in what is purchased.


----------



## Boss (Apr 7, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> I would actually much rather they just be given bulk food items once a month and skip the allotment altogether.
> 
> Give them 10 lbs of beans, 10 lbs of potatoes,  30 lbs of meat, a gallon of milk per household member,  a bag of rice, a bag of sugar, pasta, cheese, and canned or frozen veggies, flour, salt, eggs, and some baked goods mixes.



I agree. Before Food Stamps, that's kind of what we did. I don't know about 30 lbs. of meat, that seems to be a lot.. and 10 pounds of beans would last me 5 years. lol. But yeah, hand out commodity vouchers and let them go to the surplus store once or twice a month. You could even have trucks service rural areas like we once did. My great aunts got food from the commodity truck and some of the stuff was really pretty good. 

We would save butt-loads of money and more efficiently meet the objectives of feeding the needy. It would all but eliminate abuse or exploitation.


----------



## Camp (Apr 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I would actually much rather they just be given bulk food items once a month and skip the allotment altogether.
> ...


We had a whole different way of supporting farmers and farms in those days. We guaranteed farmers that what they produced would be sold on the private market or by the government. This insured farms would stay in business despite market fluctuations and economic conditions. The priority was to keep farms operating through good times and bad. Dairy farms were given great importance. The farmer was insured to stay in business and produce the nations food no matter what. That is where surplus food came from. The cheese, butter, powdered and canned milk came from surplus from the farms. The government paid the farmer for the surplus and stockpiled it. It ended up being given away as food support in America and foreign aid all over the world. It worked wonderful and kept small family farms operating in America as a vibrant agricultural success. It brought America the lowest food cost in the world and allowed Americans to become the best fed citizens in the history of mankind. While we ate steak we sent cargo ships full of grain to feed Asia and Africa with donated grains like rice and corn.


----------



## Boss (Apr 7, 2015)

Camp said:


> We had a whole different way of supporting farmers and farms in those days. We guaranteed farmers that what they produced would be sold on the private market or by the government. This insured farms would stay in business despite market fluctuations and economic conditions. The priority was to keep farms operating through good times and bad. Dairy farms were given great importance. The farmer was insured to stay in business and produce the nations food no matter what. That is where surplus food came from. The cheese, butter, powdered and canned milk came from surplus from the farms. The government paid the farmer for the surplus and stockpiled it. It ended up being given away as food support in America and foreign aid all over the world. It worked wonderful and kept small family farms operating in America as a vibrant agricultural success. It brought America the lowest food cost in the world and allowed Americans to become the best fed citizens in the history of mankind. While we ate steak we sent cargo ships full of grain to feed Asia and Africa with donated grains like rice and corn.



Okay, and when exactly did we stop doing these things? You'll find that we didn't stop, we still do them. Of course, now the surplus food isn't good enough for Americans, it's largely shipped abroad as foreign aid. We now pay farmers NOT to produce certain things.


----------



## Boss (Apr 7, 2015)

Camp said:


> We had a whole different way of supporting farmers and farms in those days. We guaranteed farmers that what they produced would be sold on the private market or by the government. This insured farms would stay in business despite market fluctuations and economic conditions. The priority was to keep farms operating through good times and bad. Dairy farms were given great importance. The farmer was insured to stay in business and produce the nations food no matter what. That is where surplus food came from. The cheese, butter, powdered and canned milk came from surplus from the farms. The government paid the farmer for the surplus and stockpiled it. It ended up being given away as food support in America and foreign aid all over the world. It worked wonderful and kept small family farms operating in America as a vibrant agricultural success. It brought America the lowest food cost in the world and allowed Americans to become the best fed citizens in the history of mankind. While we ate steak we sent cargo ships full of grain to feed Asia and Africa with donated grains like rice and corn.



Okay, and when exactly did we stop doing these things? You'll find that we didn't stop, we still do them. Of course, now the surplus food isn't good enough for Americans, it's largely shipped abroad as foreign aid. We now pay farmers NOT to produce certain things.


----------



## Boss (Apr 7, 2015)

Camp said:


> We had a whole different way of supporting farmers and farms in those days. We guaranteed farmers that what they produced would be sold on the private market or by the government. This insured farms would stay in business despite market fluctuations and economic conditions. The priority was to keep farms operating through good times and bad. Dairy farms were given great importance. The farmer was insured to stay in business and produce the nations food no matter what. That is where surplus food came from. The cheese, butter, powdered and canned milk came from surplus from the farms. The government paid the farmer for the surplus and stockpiled it. It ended up being given away as food support in America and foreign aid all over the world. It worked wonderful and kept small family farms operating in America as a vibrant agricultural success. It brought America the lowest food cost in the world and allowed Americans to become the best fed citizens in the history of mankind. While we ate steak we sent cargo ships full of grain to feed Asia and Africa with donated grains like rice and corn.



Okay, and when exactly did we stop doing these things? You'll find that we didn't stop, we still do them. Of course, now the surplus food isn't good enough for Americans, it's largely shipped abroad as foreign aid. We now pay farmers NOT to produce certain things.


----------



## Boss (Apr 7, 2015)

Camp said:


> We had a whole different way of supporting farmers and farms in those days. We guaranteed farmers that what they produced would be sold on the private market or by the government. This insured farms would stay in business despite market fluctuations and economic conditions. The priority was to keep farms operating through good times and bad. Dairy farms were given great importance. The farmer was insured to stay in business and produce the nations food no matter what. That is where surplus food came from. The cheese, butter, powdered and canned milk came from surplus from the farms. The government paid the farmer for the surplus and stockpiled it. It ended up being given away as food support in America and foreign aid all over the world. It worked wonderful and kept small family farms operating in America as a vibrant agricultural success. It brought America the lowest food cost in the world and allowed Americans to become the best fed citizens in the history of mankind. While we ate steak we sent cargo ships full of grain to feed Asia and Africa with donated grains like rice and corn.



Okay, and when exactly did we stop doing these things? You'll find that we didn't stop, we still do them. Of course, now the surplus food isn't good enough for Americans, it's largely shipped abroad as foreign aid. We now pay farmers NOT to produce certain things.


----------



## Camp (Apr 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > We had a whole different way of supporting farmers and farms in those days. We guaranteed farmers that what they produced would be sold on the private market or by the government. This insured farms would stay in business despite market fluctuations and economic conditions. The priority was to keep farms operating through good times and bad. Dairy farms were given great importance. The farmer was insured to stay in business and produce the nations food no matter what. That is where surplus food came from. The cheese, butter, powdered and canned milk came from surplus from the farms. The government paid the farmer for the surplus and stockpiled it. It ended up being given away as food support in America and foreign aid all over the world. It worked wonderful and kept small family farms operating in America as a vibrant agricultural success. It brought America the lowest food cost in the world and allowed Americans to become the best fed citizens in the history of mankind. While we ate steak we sent cargo ships full of grain to feed Asia and Africa with donated grains like rice and corn.
> ...


The farm programs were drastically changed under Butz during the Nixon and Ford Presidencies. Reagan would make changes that created the loss of family farms. Farm aid was started in the middle of the Reagan era, 1985.


----------



## Boss (Apr 7, 2015)

Camp said:


> We had a whole different way of supporting farmers and farms in those days. We guaranteed farmers that what they produced would be sold on the private market or by the government. This insured farms would stay in business despite market fluctuations and economic conditions. The priority was to keep farms operating through good times and bad. Dairy farms were given great importance. The farmer was insured to stay in business and produce the nations food no matter what. That is where surplus food came from. The cheese, butter, powdered and canned milk came from surplus from the farms. The government paid the farmer for the surplus and stockpiled it. It ended up being given away as food support in America and foreign aid all over the world. It worked wonderful and kept small family farms operating in America as a vibrant agricultural success. It brought America the lowest food cost in the world and allowed Americans to become the best fed citizens in the history of mankind. While we ate steak we sent cargo ships full of grain to feed Asia and Africa with donated grains like rice and corn.



Okay, and when exactly did we stop doing these things? You'll find that we didn't stop, we still do them. Of course, now the surplus food isn't good enough for Americans, it's largely shipped abroad as foreign aid. We now pay farmers NOT to produce certain things.


----------



## EverCurious (Apr 8, 2015)

When I look at all the other "well meaning" bullshit out there, the ongoing trends of the country, and things that have directly touched my life because of others opinions on what petty shit I should, or should not, be doing with my life - I simply have to reject the idea of that level of micromanagement.

I do however like the idea of bulk, excess sure, handouts quite a bit and I think that's a good compromise to not encourage more nanny-state, but still provide only what is necessary or however you want to phrase it.  I bet it'd lower our costs as well, if we ran stock like a business does I mean, because I am willing to bet a number of welfare recipients would turn their nose up at the offerings, and surely that would crash any EBT sales rings.

Why exactly did we stop doing the handing out bundles of food thing?


----------



## tigerred59 (Apr 8, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?




Since white people comprise mostly of food stamp recipient, I'm certain the world will come to an end now.....but here's the deal, those poor saps, you vote these morons in, deal with it!!


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 8, 2015)

What Missouri does in their state isn't a concern for anyone who doesn't live there

this is just the DNC/progressive RUN and owned WashintonCompost stirring up the shit pot. they need to be shunned.


----------



## tigerred59 (Apr 8, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?




Since white people comprise mostly of food stamp recipient, I'm certain the world will come to an end now.....but here's the deal, those poor saps, you vote these People  in, deal with it!!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 8, 2015)

Camp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


 
WHAT is "called science"?  Your personal fucking opinion of what is and isn't healthy and acceptable?

You ARE suggesting that people be told how to live.  You don't think restricting the welfare payments to only purchasing food - and that only of certain general types - isn't enough.  We should now play nitpicking Grocery Police for "good enough" food, and presumably spark a big controversial debate over whose standard of "good enough" we're going to use, leading to ongoing adjustments of what is and isn't covered according to whoever's in power at the moment, costing everyone bunches of extra money to keep reprogramming the computers to exclude this or that or the other thing.

Able to insist?  You are.  Is it a good idea or particularly helpful to anything other than your condescending sense of self-righteousness?  Not really.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


 
The purpose of the program is to provide people the means to purchase food.  At some point, we have to stop treating people like children, assume they can make decisions for themselves, and then let them live with the consequences of deciding badly.

First it wasn't enough to let people go hungry if they wouldn't provide for themselves (I'm not a supporter of letting people suffer if they're incapable of providing for themselves); we had to provide for them.  Now it's not enough for them to be fat and unhealthy if they don't choose to eat properly; we must force them to eat what we think they should.  At what point do we stop treating adults like retarded five-year-olds and taking over more and more of their independence?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> I would actually much rather they just be given bulk food items once a month and skip the allotment altogether.
> 
> Give them 10 lbs of beans, 10 lbs of potatoes,  30 lbs of meat, a gallon of milk per household member,  a bag of rice, a bag of sugar, pasta, cheese, and canned or frozen veggies, flour, salt, eggs, and some baked goods mixes.


 
There are already programs that do that.

I frankly have a problem with the food stamp program in general, precisely because I don't think it's the government's job to babysit adults by buying them groceries.  I am not going to support further babysitting them by micromanaging the types of food they buy.  And I really see no point to doing so simply to pander to people's vindictive nosiness.

Having worked in the administration of a grocery store, I have a pretty good idea what's involved in a hands-on sense to accommodate specifics and exclusions on government programs, and I'm flatly against making that more complicated, costly, and time-consuming without a better reason.

To be brutally honest, I don't much care if those people go hungry.  I REALLY don't care if they're fat and have bad nutrition.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 8, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> When I look at all the other "well meaning" bullshit out there, the ongoing trends of the country, and things that have directly touched my life because of others opinions on what petty shit I should, or should not, be doing with my life - I simply have to reject the idea of that level of micromanagement.
> 
> I do however like the idea of bulk, excess sure, handouts quite a bit and I think that's a good compromise to not encourage more nanny-state, but still provide only what is necessary or however you want to phrase it.  I bet it'd lower our costs as well, if we ran stock like a business does I mean, because I am willing to bet a number of welfare recipients would turn their nose up at the offerings, and surely that would crash any EBT sales rings.
> 
> Why exactly did we stop doing the handing out bundles of food thing?


 
We didn't.  There are still various programs that do that.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I would actually much rather they just be given bulk food items once a month and skip the allotment altogether.
> ...


 
I agree, but I also believe that if the program is going to be forced upon us, it behooves us to require that it actually follow the guidelines it was established under...that is, to keep people from starving. Not to provide them with a standard of living that is beyond what most working people can provide for their families.


----------



## Boss (Apr 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> The purpose of the program is to provide people the means to purchase food.  At some point, we have to stop treating people like children, assume they can make decisions for themselves, and then let them live with the consequences of deciding badly.
> 
> First it wasn't enough to let people go hungry if they wouldn't provide for themselves (I'm not a supporter of letting people suffer if they're incapable of providing for themselves); we had to provide for them.  Now it's not enough for them to be fat and unhealthy if they don't choose to eat properly; we must force them to eat what we think they should.  At what point do we stop treating adults like retarded five-year-olds and taking over more and more of their independence?



We won't stop as long as this country continues electing liberals. At it's very core, liberalism (socialism) becomes the antithesis of independence and liberty. We're too fucking stupid to know what is best for us, the government has to tell us what's best. We can't be allowed to make our own choices because we might not make the PC choice. 

It also does us no good to elect (an re-elect) capitulating Republicans who are afraid of opposing liberals out of fear of losing elections. As long as that "47%" out there is voting for government to solve all our problems, we will continue to see government take more of our freedom.


----------



## Boss (Apr 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> To be brutally honest, I don't much care if those people go hungry. I REALLY don't care if they're fat and have bad nutrition.



The thing is, this isn't a popular thing to say because it's not PC! You are to be chastised and ridiculed, denigrated and insulted for being the worst monster imaginable. We have to compare you to Hitler and assume you like drowning kittens in your spare time. 

You are, of course, absolutely correct. When did we jump the tracks on common sense and assume it's our responsibility to care for those not motivated to care for themselves? Was it LBJ? Was it FDR? Maybe it was 1911? Maybe it was 1864? I think it has been incremental, a little at a time, just like _Rules for Radicals_ teaches.   

Each generation that passes adds another layer of complexity to the stupid. We now have liberals arguing that government should write off the student loans which liberals begged us to make in order to help the less fortunate. Are HUD loans for homes next on the agenda? 

How much is enough? Well, nothing is ever enough for a Liberal and it's never going to be enough.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, if you waste it, then you don't have any more for the rest of the month, and you get to find another way to pay for your food.  So what?  This is really just about resenting poor people for getting welfare, which I can understand, but I have no interest in reacting by trying to micromanage people's lives even further.



The thing is, how many EBT cards get filled per month for the same money as goes to a single vacation for Michelle and her vast entourage?  I have better things to resent than feeding the poor...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


 
It DOES keep them from starving, inasmuch as you can prevent stupid individual choice at all.  It's not necessary to restrict purchases to any particular standard of "good for you" to achieve that.  And it's not like you can sit on people and forcefeed them, so it's never going to be possible to rule out the chance of someone voluntarily starving himself.

I wouldn't worry about their wonderful standard of living.  Generally speaking, SNAP doesn't give out that much money to a family every month (I suppose there are people gaming the system for a bundle, but that's a different issue).  Yes, they may decide to spend it all on steak the first week of the month, and then have to buy beans and Ramen with their own cash the rest of the month, but average families could do that with their food budget if they wished, as well.  The fact that they don't just evidences the common sense, good judgement and self-control that allows them not to be dependent on welfare in the first place.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


More than 600 for a family of four with one working parent, or two parents working part time.

600 in foodstamps can enable a pretty awesome standard of living for people who already don't have to pay for rent or electricity, school lunches or even Christmas presents, thanks to the charity of their communities and federal entitlement programs. I've talked to hundreds of people who, upon finally bringing in an income that is sufficient to support their families, whine that "I'm being punished for working!" when they find out their foodstamps have been reduced. And their response is to quit their jobs. Why should they work if they eat worse when they're working than they do when they aren't, and have LESS disposable income? If you earn $600 a month, and you don't have to pay rent, food, or utilities, that's $600 you can spend on fun!


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


That's because the purpose of these federal programs isn't charity.  The purpose of these federal programs is to manage the population.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 8, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


 Which is why we should limit them, if we can't eliminate them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > To be brutally honest, I don't much care if those people go hungry. I REALLY don't care if they're fat and have bad nutrition.
> ...


 
Yeah, well, I've never given a stale piss about being popular or politically correct, so people are welcome to denigrate and chastise and whatever the hell else to their heart's content.  I don't care about that any more than I do the quality of total strangers' nutrition.

The fact is, I treasure every opportunity I have to not put out the energy to care and have an opinion, and I resent just on principle being required to form an opinion because someone insists on making something my business that really shouldn't be.  I am therefore incapable of comprehending people who feel the need to have opinions on and get themselves involved in things that do not involve them and do not have to involve them.

The person in front of me in the checkout line has steak and ice cream and TV dinners?  Just get the hell out of my way quickly so I can pay and go home, and I really don't give a damn what you buy.

The government is wasting my tax dollars redistributing it to other people.  This concerns me.  What they spend it on once they get it is irrelevant, because it's not going to be any less a stupid government redistribution if they buy organic tofu than if they buy frozen fried chicken and potato chips.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


We did once, under Clinton... then we elected Obama.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


 
There's a difference between limiting and micromanaging.  We already limit them by requiring that SNAP can only be spent on consumable items with a certain nutrition content (there have actually been energy drinks that did not meet that fairly low standard, which tells you a lot about why they went out of business), requiring that it cannot be used to purchase prepared foods such as deli items or hot foods, etc.  Getting into "too nice for you to have on public money; other people don't have that kind of stuff" is micromanaging.  It's just pandering to resentment, not really accomplishing anything useful.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 8, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> We did once, under Clinton... then we elected Obama.



What did we eliminate under Clinton?



This should be RICH...


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


You can when you're responsible enough to support yourself. If you expect tax payers to support you then you lose certain choices.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 8, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


 
Is it reading comprehension or ignorant dick attitude that makes you incapable of having a conversation without making it about the personal?  No wonder you're eating your liver out over what you imagine other people are doing.  Get a grip.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 
It needs to be further limited.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 8, 2015)

KissMy said:


> Hamburger will cost more than steak if this passes. When the recession hit, hamburger prices here went up 400% within a year, but steak prices dropped 30% because hamburger was a by-product of steaks that was sold at a loss. Now demand drove hamburger prices through the roof because the explosion of unemployed & working poor could only afford the cheapest crap . This was a huge punch in the gut for poor people while the rich who caused the disaster get a break. Even the BLS price index shows hamburger is up 130% while steak is only up 30%. Unless some of the working poor are allowed or can afford steaks, hamburger will cost the same or more than steak.
> 
> Hamburger Prices
> 
> ...


Walmart Hamburger is $5.98/lb and Save A Lot T-Bone Steaks are $4.97/lb.

Why would you pass regulations that force people to waste taxpayer money on crap?


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


It's my fucking money you dumbass. If you want the best of foods get a job and support yourself. If not be grateful to the tax payers that are supporting your dumbass.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 8, 2015)

KissMy said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Hamburger will cost more than steak if this passes. When the recession hit, hamburger prices here went up 400% within a year, but steak prices dropped 30% because hamburger was a by-product of steaks that was sold at a loss. Now demand drove hamburger prices through the roof because the explosion of unemployed & working poor could only afford the cheapest crap . This was a huge punch in the gut for poor people while the rich who caused the disaster get a break. Even the BLS price index shows hamburger is up 130% while steak is only up 30%. Unless some of the working poor are allowed or can afford steaks, hamburger will cost the same or more than steak.
> ...


Where is this Save A Lot?? I want t-bone and I have govt. vouchers....


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 8, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


My, my, put that cross on and remember what a good person you can be....


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 8, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


My gosh, just tired of non working people wanting more from the tax payers. I don't have a use for them.


----------



## tresbigdog (Apr 8, 2015)

I haven't had time to read through all 45 pages of this, but I wanted to clear up a few things.

I live in Ohio, and work for my county's Jobs & Family Services Department.  Let me give you guys some numbers here.  First, app. 80% of able bodied SNAP recipients work.  They either work regular jobs like you and I, and just don't make enough to sustain buying groceries for their family, or they are assigned to a worksite for X number of hours per month, where they work off their SNAP assistance.

The majority of SNAP recipients are a) the elderly, b) children, and c) those on disability.  None of which are expected to work, and a) and b) cannot work in most cases.

Our tax dollars contribute VERY little to welfare, very little, so worrying about what your neighbor is doing with his food stamps is a waste of your time.

As for fraud, yes, it does exist, however, fraud has been reduced dramatically in the last decade, in part because of things like the EBT card, etc. 

Look, I could throw numbers at you all day, but I know the majority of you that are against people receiving assistance aren't going to change your minds.  The funny thing is the majority of the people complaining about people on assistance are either on assistance themselves or applied and were turned down


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 8, 2015)

The county doesn't issue foodstamps.

Yes, more and more people who shouldn't be eligible for snap benefits receive snap. That's what we're talking about. Exactly. It's ridiculous because they are in no danger of starving.


----------



## SillyWabbit (Apr 8, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.
> ...



It's strictly oatmeal for you little mister.


----------



## SillyWabbit (Apr 8, 2015)

If I got food stamps I trade them for reeses peanut butter cups!


----------



## SillyWabbit (Apr 8, 2015)

tresbigdog said:


> I haven't had time to read through all 45 pages of this, but I wanted to clear up a few things.
> 
> I live in Ohio, and work for my county's Jobs & Family Services Department.  Let me give you guys some numbers here.  First, app. 80% of able bodied SNAP recipients work.  They either work regular jobs like you and I, and just don't make enough to sustain buying groceries for their family, or they are assigned to a worksite for X number of hours per month, where they work off their SNAP assistance.
> 
> ...



Wait, does this mean if I complain I can get food stamps? I'd like some food stamps...I gotta start bitching about more stuff...


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 8, 2015)

SillyWabbit said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


 That's right, if that's all you can afford. There's nothing wrong with oatmeal. You eat what you can afford to eat. And if you're eating nutritious food, you'll be okay.

It's not the job of the state to provide the citizenry with bakery birthday cakes and T-bones for a crowd of your close friends every month.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 8, 2015)

We eat oatmeal every day for about half the month in my house.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I CAN AFFORD, and it's nutritious. Is it what the kids would PREFER to eat every morning before school? What do you think? But if they're hungry, they eat it. And even if they aren't, the rule is you eat 3 good sized bites because it's food and you need it, and I can't afford mcdonald's or steak and eggs for breakfast.


----------



## SillyWabbit (Apr 8, 2015)

I eat oatmeal everday. It's awesome. Of course, _my _oatmeal has fruits and nuts and brown sugar and other goodies mixed in. Could I keep the goodies if I bought my oatmeal with food stamps? What if I mugged an old lady and took _her _food stamps--could I also buy steak?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 8, 2015)

SillyWabbit said:


> I eat oatmeal everday. It's awesome. Of course, _my _oatmeal has fruits and nuts and brown sugar and other goodies mixed in. Could I keep the goodies if I bought my oatmeal with food stamps? What if I mugged an old lady and took _her _food stamps--could I also buy steak?


 
Absolutely.

I agree about oatmeal. It's almost a complete food..I think people can subsist almost entirely on oatmeal..with the occasional sheep's stomach and innards thrown in for color, of course..and the occasional egg and cheese meal.

I wouldn't force the kids to eat it if they hated it. But if we look at non-obese cultures (aside from cultures where they're just flat out starving and there's nothing to eat ever) you'll see they eat a pretty non-varied diet. They eat what is cheap and readily available to them, and they don't eat much else. So in Japan, it might be rice and veggies, or veggies and fish, the type depends on where you live and what you can lay your hands on and afford. In Russia it could be beets and cabbage, cabbage and potatoes. And vodka, of course. In America, the pioneers ate the same thing day in and day out according to the season. All winter they existed on dried apples, potatoes (if they had them) root vegetables (if they had them) and whatever they could make with flour or cornmeal and water (if they had any) and meat (if they had any). Indians, who in their natural state were pretty healthy, had VERY limited diets. Have you ever tried pemmican? It's nasty! But nutritious.

We've morphed into this culture where we think that if people (especially poor, stupid people) aren't granted their every desire, they're being *discriminated* against. It's ridiculous. If you're starving, you take what charity is available to keep you alive. But you don't have a RIGHT to delicious meals comprised of everything you love 3 x a day. Plus snacks.


----------



## Camp (Apr 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Since so many of the recipients of our tax funded food program that feeds them are children, ya, someone has to show them an educated way to eat and since the funds involved are tax payer funds, it is appropriate to have some kinds of watch dog control. Nobody is telling people how to live by limiting how they spend donated food assistance funds. They have the ability and freedom to purchase whatever they want with their own money. It is not an attempt to control how people live by insisting that the five dollars we give them be spent on oatmeal instead of bacon. Only a very stupid person would not understand that science has proven beyond any doubt that eating cholesterol lowering oatmeal packed with vitamins is healthier than eating cholesterol causing processed bacon packed with chemicals and blood pressure increasing salt. To top it off, the five dollars worth of bacon will last a very short time and do little to prevent hunger while the five dollars worth of oatmeal will provide many days worth of hunger relief.


----------



## EverCurious (Apr 8, 2015)

To get back to the food bundles thing, I'm guessing that's now community stuff rather than government stuff (or is it more like /some/ states do that still? I doubt it would have ever been feasible up here honestly, 3mo growth season and all)

Anyway, I've been trying to research this a bit in my spare time and I found the following for Alaska SNAP:

(Household Size, Urban, Rural I, Rural II)
1 $227 $290 $353
2 $417 $532 $648
3 $598 $762 $928
4 $759 $968 $1178
5 $902 $1150 $1399
6 $1082 $1380 $1679
7 $1196 $1525 $1856
8 $1367 $1743 $2121
Each additional $+171 $+218 $+265

So family of five in the city gets $902/m.  This sounds high to me, we had a family of 5 (3 teen age boys) and it was like $600-700/m groceries for us...  We're not real fancy eaters, but we do buy steaks and pepper bacon from the butcher every week...

Now I presume these kids are also getting free school lunch too, I don't suppose that cost comes out of their SNAP benefits?  I paid out another $300/ish a month for my boys to get school lunch (which I guess argumentatively would put our bill at about $900/m.)  Though the free food at school program up here offers kids both breakfast and lunch for free though...  Anyway, even if the kids are getting free breakfast/lunch we'd be roughly talking about like $2/meal (ish). ~shrug~ /That/ doesn't sound unreasonable to me.


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> We eat oatmeal every day for about half the month in my house.
> 
> BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I CAN AFFORD, and it's nutritious. Is it what the kids would PREFER to eat every morning before school? What do you think? But if they're hungry, they eat it. And even if they aren't, the rule is you eat 3 good sized bites because it's food and you need it, and I can't afford mcdonald's or steak and eggs for breakfast.


Steak and egg for breakfast? The only way I get that is, if I didn't eat all of my steak from the nite before. I need welfare!


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 8, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> To get back to the food bundles thing, I'm guessing that's now community stuff rather than government stuff (or is it more like /some/ states do that still? I doubt it would have ever been feasible up here honestly, 3mo growth season and all)
> 
> Anyway, I've been trying to research this a bit in my spare time and I found the following for Alaska SNAP:
> 
> ...


I could (and have) fed a family of 8 on about 450 a month.

If you want to learn how to feed a lot of people on a shoestring, take lessons from the primary chef in a large Mexican family, or better yet, a large Laotian or Cantonese family.

Bag of rice, some bags of veggies, and weird cuts of meat that are applied VERY sparingly..and beans. The Mexicans make tortillas. And they all eat quite well, with enough foodstamps left over to barter for whatever they want.

Of course..they do supplement with dogs and cats and the occasional goat.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 8, 2015)

Next to oatmeal, eggs are probably the most economical complete food that there is.


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > To get back to the food bundles thing, I'm guessing that's now community stuff rather than government stuff (or is it more like /some/ states do that still? I doubt it would have ever been feasible up here honestly, 3mo growth season and all)
> ...


That was probably before the Obama economy.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 8, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...


 
I could still do it I think. They wouldn't get a lot, but they'd get enough. I feed my family of 3 on about 200 a month right now. Some months less, some months more....


----------



## Boss (Apr 8, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, if you waste it, then you don't have any more for the rest of the month, and you get to find another way to pay for your food.  So what?  This is really just about resenting poor people for getting welfare, which I can understand, but I have no interest in reacting by trying to micromanage people's lives even further.
> ...



Excellent observation! Why do Conservative allow Liberals to control the dialogue? THAT should be what is debated here! This Liberal pops in to USMB to post a smarmy thread about mean old Republicans wanting to deny the starving their steak and lobsters, and Conservatives immediately fall all over themselves explaining and clarifying... WHY? We should just all say Republicans don't want people having to rely on food stamps, period! 

The Liberals knock us off message all the time and we respond like a bunch of trained seals. They know what they are doing, they understand that we don't really want people to starve or do without, but all the time they can get us to spend defending our positions and explaining our policies, that's time we aren't focusing on Benghazi or the IRS shenanigans. All the load of crap and corruption happening daily with this administration, and we're stuck here arguing with morons about steaks and lobster!


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


 
That's what makes the ignore button such a valuable tool.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 8, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> To get back to the food bundles thing, I'm guessing that's now community stuff rather than government stuff (or is it more like /some/ states do that still? I doubt it would have ever been feasible up here honestly, 3mo growth season and all)
> 
> Anyway, I've been trying to research this a bit in my spare time and I found the following for Alaska SNAP:
> 
> ...


 I don't think those numbers are right...what site are you using?

Snap is a fed program. Unless Alaska has a state supplement (which I doubt but isn't beyond the realm of possibility, given the fact that they have oil subsidies to play with)....I just am not seeing it. And I've never seen different *rates* based on where you live? Though again, it could be an Alaska thing. But more than a hundred bucks per person?????


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 8, 2015)

SillyWabbit said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


I'll just trash it...


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 8, 2015)

SillyWabbit said:


> I eat oatmeal everday. It's awesome. Of course, _my _oatmeal has fruits and nuts and brown sugar and other goodies mixed in. Could I keep the goodies if I bought my oatmeal with food stamps? What if I mugged an old lady and took _her _food stamps--could I also buy steak?


Only if the lady is not below the poverty line of 265%


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 8, 2015)

SillyWabbit said:


> If I got food stamps I trade them for reeses peanut butter cups!


I still snort Pixie Stick dust....


----------



## Boss (Apr 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > To get back to the food bundles thing, I'm guessing that's now community stuff rather than government stuff (or is it more like /some/ states do that still? I doubt it would have ever been feasible up here honestly, 3mo growth season and all)
> ...



SNAP is a federal program administered by the state DHRs. The state can supplement the federal amount so benefits may vary from state to state.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



No, it really doesn't.  Again, it would serve no purpose other than to allow conservatives to feel vindictively justified in their moral outrage, and liberals to feel smug and self-righteous in their further attempts to control others like marionettes.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 8, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Ignorant dick attitude it is.  Call me when you grow up into a real conservative instead of stumbling by accident into a position and thinking it makes you mature.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 8, 2015)

Camp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



koshergrl  See?  This right here is what you're opening the door to.  Just THINK how much money can be wasted by complicating the system with fools like this attempting to use it to impose their personal preferences onto others' lives.

If I needed no other argument against unintentional complicity with leftists, Camp here would suffice.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > To get back to the food bundles thing, I'm guessing that's now community stuff rather than government stuff (or is it more like /some/ states do that still? I doubt it would have ever been feasible up here honestly, 3mo growth season and all)
> ...



Appalachia.  I learned to cook and stock a kitchen from my mother, who grew up in a hillbilly family in Kentucky during the Great Depression.  The normal contents of my kitchen could feed my entire family for two weeks with no supplements at all.

I shake my head in bewilderment at people who hear "broke food" and can't think of anything besides Ramen noodles and cheap mac and cheese.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



See, that's where I am.  I have problems with food stamps in general.  I have no intention of conceding the idea that the government should support millions of American families, and start debating, "But they're gonna live the way I want them to!"


----------



## Boss (Apr 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> See, that's where I am. I have problems with food stamps in general. I have no intention of conceding the idea that the government should support millions of American families, and start debating, "But they're gonna live the way I want them to!"



Well, I can be pragmatic enough to admit that we need some sort of federal-level program in place to ensure the public isn't suffering an inhumanity. I don't have a problem with that, I think it's fine... but what has happened is, that sentiment (which most have) has been exploited and taken advantage of, over and over, until we have "poor folks" buying up all the steak and lobsters on our dime. 

We need a serious roll-back to what the proper roles of federal government are. The general welfare is not supposed to mean what it has been interpreted to mean. And if anyone wants to go back and look at the arguments made by Madison and others during the debates on this, they will find that he was particularly fearful that people would take "general welfare" to mean precisely what they've taken it to mean today. Actually, "fearful" is the wrong word, some were fearful but he explained why he didn't think people would be so stupid as to think that. "To provide for the general welfare" can't mean every whim you can dream up that you think government ought to do for people. It can't mean that! It is a moronic interpretation that Madison believed no one would ever make. Yet... we have! 

I don't mind having a national base-level safety net for those who fall through the cracks in society. But this particular net has turned into a luxury hammock with catered drinks in paradise. We've now created a system which actually does more harm than good because when people try to get off the gravy train, it's too hard. They get jobs and *boom* all the free stuff is gone, so now they are worse poor than before and having to work to boot.  No motivation to do this! Fixing the problem requires we motivate people-- not continue to demotivate them.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



So it's ignorant to expect people who otherwise wouldn't have what taxpayers are forced to provide them to buy it themselves if they want better or say thank you for those of us doing for them what they should be doing for themselves?


----------



## Camp (Apr 8, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


It isn't complicated at all. There has been a program operating that restricts and designates foods for decades and it works just fine. It is called WIC It is a program for expectant mothers, infants and children that does exactly as I have been suggesting to be implemented through the entire food assistance program. It reduces cost and insures expectant mothers, infants and children are healthier. The health benefits reduce medical cost.  The foods are designated by nutrition and health experts and the producers pay for and apply the labels. No one is forcing anyone into anything. The recipients are not forced into accepting free food. If people do not want to accept free food that the government has deemed as healthy and appropriately priced, they don't have to accept the free food. What you suggest is that when we hand a bowl of vegetable soup, a fresh garden salad and apple juice  to a person they can refuse it and demand a double bacon cheeseburger and fries with a milk shake. What I suggest is if they don't want the soup, salad and juice they can go get the burger, fries and shake with their own money, not mine.


----------



## skye (Apr 8, 2015)

Since when lobster ....

was needed ..to survive?

I want to say so many  expletetives..... towards those

scum...recipients....


----------



## Camp (Apr 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > See, that's where I am. I have problems with food stamps in general. I have no intention of conceding the idea that the government should support millions of American families, and start debating, "But they're gonna live the way I want them to!"
> ...


You show that you have no idea of what you are talking about. The programs may be funded at the federal level, but they are controlled at the state level. The state folds the food assistance programs into the overall state public assistance program. The state determines the foods approved or disapproved following a flexible set of federal guideline and control enforcement. If your state has a lousy program it is your responsibility to repair it.


----------



## skye (Apr 8, 2015)

does the scum....want caviar too?


bloody hell .... what a nerve


----------



## Boss (Apr 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



And you show that you're not really reading the thread and paying attention to the conversation because in my previous post I stated that SNAP is a federally-funded program administered by state DHRs and benefits vary from state to state. So I do indeed know what I am talking about. 

The SNAP program is not "controlled" at the state level, it's administered by state DHR and funded by federal appropriation. With that comes mandates the state must meet. The state can kick in some extra funding, it's up to the state. There are some federal guidelines but states also have some discretion in setting limitations. For instance, in Alabama, you can't buy energy drinks with SNAP benefits. In Florida, you can use SNAP to pay for Taco Bell. 

Regardless of who controls what and what you can buy where... the debate should be about our national responsibilities to provide for "the needy" in society. I understand it's an honorable and good thing to do, to help your fellow man... but should it be a requirement as a citizen? Should I be obligated to pay for whatever you think is satisfactory? Is it the role of our federal government to shake people down and make them pay for things that should be charity? 

Because charity by force isn't really charity, is it?


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 9, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > We did once, under Clinton... then we elected Obama.
> ...


She said we should limit them.  I said we did once, under Clinton.  I was referring to "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996."  Go ahead and Google it yourself, ya jerk.


----------



## Politico (Apr 9, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


I think someone telling me buying processed cheese is ok but real meat is not is an idiot.


----------



## xdangerousxdavex (Apr 9, 2015)

Politico said:


> I think someone telling me buying processed cheese is ok but real meat is not is an idiot.


You can stock up a wagon of cereals on your welfare and eat healthy.


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


This is what liberalism has created. Ungrateful little shit heads.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 9, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



It's created a large portion of society thinking someone owes them something and when those of us that are forced to pay for it say something about it, we don't get a "thank you" we get "gimme more".


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 9, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > I think someone telling me buying processed cheese is ok but real meat is not is an idiot.
> ...


If you don't mind rickets...


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 9, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Ungrateful shit heads come from all walks of life...


----------



## tresbigdog (Apr 9, 2015)

SillyWabbit said:


> tresbigdog said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't had time to read through all 45 pages of this, but I wanted to clear up a few things.
> ...


 
Im not sure what you mean....but no, thats not how it works.

Complain about what??


----------



## tresbigdog (Apr 9, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> The county doesn't issue foodstamps.
> 
> Yes, more and more people who shouldn't be eligible for snap benefits receive snap. That's what we're talking about. Exactly. It's ridiculous because they are in no danger of starving.


 
I know the county doesnt issue SNAP, but each county has an agency (like the one I work for) that is in charge of it.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 9, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



You don't need govt. vouchers to buy T-Bone Steaks from a Save A Lot store near you for 20% less than Walmart sells hamburger for.

Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance. They outsourced a significant chunk of their labor costs to the taxpayer. Plus “Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market,” it reads. “Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion in food stamp sales in 2013.”

We should ban any company who has employees on the government dole from profiting from employees on the government dole. Walmart clearly marks up profits on items poor workers buy most with government food-stamps. This is why they sell Hamburger for 20% more than T-Bone Steak. Prior to the economic meltdown, Hamburger sold at an 80% discount to T-Bone Steaks. Forcing food-stamps recipients to buy certain foods will greatly increase retailers fleecing of taxpayers & underpaid workers. This is why "Consumer Staples Stocks" prices soared during economic market crash, pay cuts, increasing UE & expansion of food-stamps.


----------



## EverCurious (Apr 9, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > To get back to the food bundles thing, I'm guessing that's now community stuff rather than government stuff (or is it more like /some/ states do that still? I doubt it would have ever been feasible up here honestly, 3mo growth season and all)
> ...



Food Stamps
(It's DHSS for Alaska, sorry I forgot to put in the link before)

According to the state Alaska only pays for 50% of the cost to _operate_ the program, so I do not believe there is a state supplement to the SNAP program's benefit payouts.

For sure the urban/rural is an Alaska thing; "Alaska has special rules that allow for higher Food Stamp benefits in rural areas."  That was my whole point in using it for my analysis of the amounts paid out though, because I'm quite sure we will have one of the highest benefit amounts for SNAP given our uniqueness, and size.

Thing is, even given our higher cost of living, and the vast uniqueness of the state, I personally do not find the benefits paid out to be unreasonable.  $2/person per meal is simply NOT unreasonable.  This leaves me personally only seriously concerned with abuse of the program, rather than the amount of benefits paid out, or, quite frankly, what said benefits are spent on.



As a note, most of our "oil benefits" are given out on an annual basis through the Alaska Permanent Fund to every Alaskan resident, and, as far as I know, oil related taxes, aside from the PFD, go into the states general spending fund.  Oil money has historically paid up to 90% of Alaska's spending, though I believe currently it's at around 16% as we've diversified our "portfolio" in the wake of all the oil/government corruption crap in the 80s - now we rely heavily on tourism, being an international trade hub, and international air travel hub, etc. We're trying to expand the port so we can tap, and create, a sea to air international trade/travel route atm - which [we hope] will bump international trade/travel hub into the number one spot for long-term economic stability regardless of fossil fuel reliance down the road. We've already got a solid hook into international air trade, most of your iPhones come through Anchorage, and tourism is pretty stable since a huge portion of the state is protected parkland, but we want to become more of a pre-stop; cruise or fly into Anchorage, do some whale watching, then continue onto Europe/Russia/Asia, for example.)

Also, to expand further on the urban/rural thing if one is interested: I'm sure the native corporations leveraged the rural rate differences because of the heavy reliance on commuter planes and the "non traditional delivery of goods" that is par for the course up here.

The state is huge, yet we have one highway (and it only goes from Anchorage on the south central coast of the state, north to Fairbanks roughly in the center of the states main body which is about 360miles - or 6hrs of nothing but wilderness and "blink towns" as I call them; "don't blink you'll miss it"), then we have our one railroad line (which doesn't go north past Fairbanks either - muskeg makes a constant roadway pretty much financially impossible in the Arctic, and certainly not profitable or logical for a 400+ mile stretch of it. (That's why we have "ice road truckers" - ya know, that reality show - because that is the only economically feasible time to drive from say Fairbanks to the North Slope, even for the oil companies. I believe it's officially highway 11, but we just call it the ice road.)

Thing is we have a lot of villages in "the bush," as we call it, which are not along the highway or railway - places that sprung up off mule back homesteads looking for gold, and, mostly, native villages.  My educated guess is that rural 1 is for villages/towns outside the big cities (aka Anchorage, Palmer/Wasilla, Fairbanks, probably Valdez, maybe Whittier) along the roadways, or near a whistle stop on the railroad (yea we still have whistle stops, there's one about 2 miles from my house) and rural 2 is likely the rest of them, I'd say most of them, with zero road/rail connection what-so-ever.

There are towns up here that are 100% inaccessible for half the year (aka you can only boat into them in the summer, or can only snow machine into them in the winter.) We also have a bunch of towns that rely heavily on small commuter planes for 100% of their goods movement. There are Arctic coastal villages can only have fuel and supplies delivered in the summer when the ice pack melts; where land travel isn't possible because of the muskeg (we had to have a Russian ice breaker come save one of our villages fuel delivery tankers not too long ago because the ice came too early and blocked them, basically had the Russian's not helped out that entire village of like 2k would have very likely died, no joke.)  Which of course attests to the real master of Alaska; nature and the weather - urban or rural, ALL Alaskan's are nothing but slaves to her fickle whim.


----------



## EverCurious (Apr 9, 2015)

Boss said:
			
		

> Regardless of who controls what and what you can buy where... the debate should be about our national responsibilities to provide for "the needy" in society. I understand it's an honorable and good thing to do, to help your fellow man... but should it be a requirement as a citizen? Should I be obligated to pay for whatever you think is satisfactory? Is it the role of our federal government to shake people down and make them pay for things that should be charity?
> 
> Because charity by force isn't really charity, is it?



Agreed and thanked.


I have no problem helping someone back on his/her feet, but I do have an issue with _fully supporting_ him/her, and his/her family - as if they were my /own/ children (oft better than) - and, worse, to do so seemingly, if not actually, FOREVER.

Real life example time:
As it stands right now I am paying for all three of my children's college educations, I am paying rent for one of them, I've bought all of them cars, and one of them had a dipshit moment with a girl so I'm helping him pay off a credit card he stupidly abused.  The two out of the house [my mother and I] give about $500/m for groceries/gas/bills to get to school/work. (I am also helping, along with other family members, to pay for the aftermath of a gambling and drinking addiction for my brother.)

Keep in mind the above is my immediate family -- I WILL NOT pay for them to have cellphones(*), cable, new laptops, new cars, or ANY other "fancy" shit like that.  IF they want those "fun" things then THEY are expected to get a damn job/better job and pay for it themselves.  Luckily my boys were raised to be responsible (for the most part) and they have jobs, and are attending college full time to boot - They want to be self-sufficient, and be able to afford those "fun" things on their own ASAP. Hell my middle child refuses to take rent money, and very often transfers back some or all of his $500 "allowance" if he doesn't need it. (He makes $10.75/hr flipping burgers, JS)


Mostly, what irks me about welfare programs these days, in general, is that we are not just "helping them out" anymore, we are paying for EVERYTHING through various programs.  There is no end in sight and it seems like there is no motivation to get off "assistance" at all.

For fucks sake, I demand my own children to be TRYING to better their lives if we're going to help them out; they need to be working (and going to school.)  EVEN in the beginning before they moved out, they knew they needed to get jobs, and they knew damn well that we were not going to pay for *everything* for them.  AND we're not even a "typical" family in that we have money so we are able to "spoil" them more than most parents would.  We give our boys around $1k/month (setting college fees aside) and that's it, that's all they are getting.  We're not going to let them starve, but we're not going to just pay all their bills forever either.


(* In the past year, market conditions up here, have actually made a cellphone far cheaper than a landline, so I’ve kind of retracted my thoughts that a cellphone is a /frivolous/ thing vs just a landline.)


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


 
I'm not entirely sure I even understood what your question was.

Is it ignorant to expect people on welfare to say thank you or be grateful?  Humans being what they are, I'd have to say yes, expecting gratitude is . . . naive.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


 
It gives me the willies to hear any leftist ever say "It's not complicated" about any proposal they make, because it always means a coming shitstorm of red tape and expense.

WIC is an utterly different sort of program from Food Stamps, funded differently and administered differently and with different scale, targets, and requirements.  The idea of trying to apply the workings of WIC to the massive SNAP program, particularly to accommodate the subsequent wrangling over what constitutes "proper" food from all sides, just makes me queasy.

By the way, if you really think WIC is radically revising people's eating habits and overall nutrition to the point of significantly altering medical costs, you're a bigger moron than I credited.

What I actually suggest is that we stop focusing on "how can we tinker with ever more minute details of how other people live?" and address the REAL problems instead.

By the way, shitforbrains, SNAP doesn't cover buying a burger, fries, and shake.  It covers grocery stores, not restaurants.  Dimwit.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Do you think it's ignorant to expect someone who would otherwise not have what they need to say thank you when what they demand is given to them?  

I do expect gratitude from someone who demands another person do for them what they should be doing for themselves  That doesn't mean I expect them to bow down and worship those who fund just an acknowledgement that what we're forced to provide them is something that, if we weren't, they wouldn't have it.   What we get is more and more demands when what they have handed to them for nothing doesn't suit them.  When those who otherwise wouldn't get something do nothing but bitch and whine when they are expected to follow what should be stringent rules on its use, it tells me they aren't grateful.  Hell, how many of them don't know that in order for them to get something through social welfare, someone that actually had to earn it had a portion taken first.  My brother is a postal carrier.  Several years ago he told me how, while delivering to a Section 8 location, he was chastised for not having arrived sooner by one of the residents waiting for a check.  He said this resident kept asking, "where's my check".  My brother said he got to the point of frustration that he told the leech that he knew the check was coming because taxes had been taken out of his the previous week.  My brother said the resident told him that the government wrote that check to him.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Sad thing is SNAP can be used in a convenient store where prices are much higher and the food is more unhealthy.  Why should it matter to leeches.  It's not their money and when they have health problems related to eating that crap, someone else will be forced to fund their medical care.


----------



## Camp (Apr 9, 2015)

skye said:


> By the way, shitforbrains, SNAP doesn't cover buying a burger, fries, and shake.  It covers grocery stores, not restaurants.  Dimwit.


It covers hamburger, including ready made frozen burgers, cheese, frozen pre cut fries, cooking oil, ice cream and milk. The point was that for the cost of the unhealthy burger meal a dozen or more alternative healthy meals could be obtained.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2015)

Politico said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


 
See, there's a big problem right there.  I keep asking, "Who decides what's 'acceptable, healthy' food, and by what standard?" and everyone on both sides just shines it on and rants about their own personal obsession with the food stamp program.  Conservatives have their panties all in a ruffle at the idea that the poor are living it up on the taxpayer dime; leftists are in a lather at the idea that someone out there is eating something not politically correct and personally approved by Michelle Obama.

Am I the only one who can see the program potentially degenerating into a multi-sided argument with one group wanting only to buy hamburger and bologna because "poor people shouldn't get expensive food", another group wanting only organic produce and tofu because red meat and eggs are HORRIBLE, a third group wanting THEIR particular hobby horse of healthy eating, a fourth . . . you get the idea.  And every time a different group get control, we the taxpayer get to pay to reprogram the system to incorporate the new restrictions and implement them in grocery stores across the nation.  I can also see some stores getting so frustrated with trying to keep up with the ever-changing rules and just not accepting SNAP any more, thereby restricting the shopping choices of the poor and making it harder for them to get the nutrition assistance that was supposed to be the point of the whole exercise.

Personally, if we're going to pay for this at all - and that's definitely another argument entirely - I'd rather have poor kids eating frozen dinners every night than going hungry because some self-righteous twit decided to try to force his crack-whore mother to cook a real meal she's too stoned to comprehend.  But that's just me.


----------



## Camp (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> By the way, if you really think WIC is radically revising people's eating habits and overall nutrition to the point of significantly altering medical costs, you're a bigger moron than I credited.
> 
> .


It is just one of those pesky facts you do not want to acknowledge. Babies are born healthier to women on WIC, fewer babies die in fancy and medical cost are drastically reduced for infants and children on the WIC program.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


 
Convenience stores accept SNAP because sometimes, they're the only place that's available.  I remember one year here in Tucson, an entire section of town was cut off by flash floods during the rainy season for over a week.  The only store that the residents could get to was the Circle K located out there, and the county had to ferry the employees and supplies out by helicopter every day just to service those poor people.  (They have since improved the bridges on the roads going out there so that they can't be washed away.)

This is extreme, but the fact remains that sometimes going all the way to a proper grocery store just isn't feasible.

Actually, those "leeches" generally don't want their free food money to go away any faster than anyone else wants their money to.  There are always going to be wasteful, careless people.  Nothing's gonna regulate that out of existence.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, if you really think WIC is radically revising people's eating habits and overall nutrition to the point of significantly altering medical costs, you're a bigger moron than I credited.
> ...


 
Prove it.


----------



## 2aguy (Apr 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, if you really think WIC is radically revising people's eating habits and overall nutrition to the point of significantly altering medical costs, you're a bigger moron than I credited.
> ...




Why would healthy babies matter to democrats.....they fund planned parent hood....isn't that their solution to under nourished babies.....?


----------



## Camp (Apr 9, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


It is not the fault of the recipients. Blame the politicia


2aguy said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Why do you enjoy sounding so stupid and ridiculous?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, shitforbrains, SNAP doesn't cover buying a burger, fries, and shake.  It covers grocery stores, not restaurants.  Dimwit.
> ...


 
See, you don't want them to have hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or - apparently - cooking oil.  I'm betting Kosher thinks the program should be limited to things like hamburger and milk.  (How they're supposed to prepare food without cooking oil has me mystified.)

I become more and more curious as to what you think these "alternative healthy meals" that are cheaper than hamburger are, and how they don't include milk.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



We can't dare blame those who USE their food stamp money somewhere it costs more.  How dare we expect those who have handed to them what they should be doing for themselves to act responsibly.  Why should we.  We don't expect them to be responsible enough to provide it to themselves.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...



So you can't cook without cooking oil and can't cook healthy without milk?


----------



## Camp (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...


I never said milk should not be allowed. None of this will happen and isn't even proposed. The thread title is another misdirected and misinformed title. The Republicans in Missouri never proposed the legislation being suggested. It was proposed by one Republican and rejected by all the other Republicans. It was never a bill or an amendment for a bill or a topic of a committee hearing. Just one idea announced by one Republican. The Republicans will not take on the grocery industry, food producing industry and agriculture industry. The system will be abused and wasteful because big business likes it that way and both Republicans and Democrats will march to the beat of the drums the industries beat.


----------



## Camp (Apr 9, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


80% of the recipients are infants, children, senior citizens and disabled.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



That has nothing to do with using something someone else was forced to give you responsibly and efficiently.   It's the least they can do.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> She said we should limit them.  I said we did once, under Clinton.  I was referring to "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996."  Go ahead and Google it yourself, ya jerk.



So there was an act that place a work or school requirement on AFDC and actually INCREASED benefits, and which move general relief recipients to SSI, nearly tripling what the received.

So again, WHAT was limited?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


 
Even WIC thinks milk is part of a healthy child's diet.  And no, removing any sort of cooking oil from the recipe severely limits what one can prepare, as any competent cook could tell you.

Keep talking, though, Camp, because you're making my point for me.  You don't think Food Stamps should cover hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or cooking oil, apparently.  What DO you think it should provide?  What constitutes the healthy diet you would like to mandate for the millions of people receiving SNAP?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 9, 2015)

2aguy said:


> Why would healthy babies matter to democrats.....they fund planned parent hood....isn't that their solution to under nourished babies.....?



An IQ of 85 produces a high functioning worker who does not question or seek to gain control. Red meats and fish stimulate brain development, red meat particularly stimulates higher brain functions. Feeding a child sugars and cereals will ensure that brain development remains low and that an obedient worker is produced. I believe Camp and Puddly Pillowbite have stated that they eat no meat, so the results are on display. Obviously the party will offer a well balanced and protein rich diet to those who are groomed to rule; but for the Proles, a diet of cereal and sugar will create the type of underclass democrats desire.


----------



## Camp (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


You are misinterpreting my post. Not sure if you are doing it because you are dishonest or stupid.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 
No, you just really want to walk it back because you ran your gums without thinking and now you're embarrassed.

Let's cut to the chase.

What do you think should consistute the acceptable, healthy diet that Food Stamps should cover?  Give me the specifics of what you would limit it to and why.

And I very much invite everyone else who advocates playing Food Police, for whatever reason, to answer the same question.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Food Stamps should cover what those of us forced to fund them say they should cover.  I don't know what that list is but I've expressed why.


----------



## hazlnut (Apr 9, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?





This "luxury item" bullshit has been debunked -- nevertheless, Tea Brains are going to run with it.

Dopes.


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Expecting a free ride is slack. Get a job.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 9, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Not only do we not get gratitude, we get demands from leeches about the stuff they get for nothing not being enough.  It's one thing to rely on someone else for what should be provided by that person to that person, it's another when those getting it whine about the amount.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


 
So you just have a vague idea that you should be micromanaging those damned poor people, with no clear picture of what you have in mind, other than making them toe the line, any line.

Got it.

Next.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 
Well, that was suitably pointless, kneejerk, and time-wasting.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


 
Of course we don't get gratitude.  Of course we get demands.  Still not addressing the point, though, which is any putative value to further controlling and micromanaging people's lives.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



So your answer is to ignore those that would bitch about not getting someone else's money and let them do as they wish with what you earned?  There's a simple concept they need to understand.  If they don't like the conditions, don't ask for the money.  If they ask, shut the fuck up when those of us forced to provide it to them expect to have a say it how it's spent.  

My boss pays me, therefore, when I'm doing what he pays me to do, he dictates what I do and when I do it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



What's wrong with expecting people to support themselves?  The wastes are those that demand someone else do it then bitch when they aren't handed as much as they want.  To them I say what my dad told me as a kid when I said I wanted more.  He said want in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up quicker.   There's an idea.  Let them shit in their hands then eat it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



The idea of why is very clear.  The idea of what can be discussed.  I have a very good picture in mind.  If you demand someone else's money in order to live, expect those funding it to have a say in what you do.

Seems your idea is to leave someone alone who demands another person's money in order to live.  Tell you what.  When they quit demanding, I'll quit saying.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 
No, my answer would be to focus on the REAL issue and not concede the leftists' perception as reality before I ever even start arguing.

By the way, your jerking knee is really distracting.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


 
See above re: jerking knee.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


The real issue is someone even getting a dime of another person's money forced by the government.  Anything related to it is also real.  

By the way, your willingness to support leeches is telling.


----------



## Conservative65 (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You may not care if someone gets your money, but I do.  The only think jerking here is you as the pivot on the circle jerk held by leeches who laugh because idiots like you won't hold them accountable.


----------



## Camp (Apr 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I am shocked that in this day and age there are people like you who don't know the difference between healthy nutrition and foods that cause health problems. I gave you an example when I used the cheeseburger, fries and shake example. In that post I suggested that instead of that unhealthy meal it be substituted for a bowl of vegetable soup, a salad and juice. My selection would cost less and offer nutritional value. The burger, fries and shake meal offers, artery clogging cholesterol and diabetes causing carbs and sugar. Both of these diseases are epidemics in this country by the way and their is no debate about their causes. You and anyone else has the right to eat them as much as you want, or in moderation, or not at all. My argument is that society and the tax payer should no more pay for those negative food items than they should pay for beer and wine, which by the way is healthier than the burger and fries and ice cream shake. If we pay for milk and juice, why not pay for beer and whine? That seems to be your theory.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 9, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 
"I have a very good picture in mind."

Well, this is going to be the third time, I believe, that I've asked you to elucidate what that picture is for the rest of us.  Try to get over your partisan hackery and address what's actually said, please.


----------



## Boss (Apr 9, 2015)

KissMy said:


> You don't need govt. vouchers to buy T-Bone Steaks from a Save A Lot store near you for 20% less than Walmart sells hamburger for.
> 
> Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance. They outsourced a significant chunk of their labor costs to the taxpayer. Plus “Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market,” it reads. “Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion in food stamp sales in 2013.”
> 
> We should ban any company who has employees on the government dole from profiting from employees on the government dole. Walmart clearly marks up profits on items poor workers buy most with government food-stamps. This is why they sell Hamburger for 20% more than T-Bone Steak. Prior to the economic meltdown, Hamburger sold at an 80% discount to T-Bone Steaks. Forcing food-stamps recipients to buy certain foods will greatly increase retailers fleecing of taxpayers & underpaid workers. This is why "Consumer Staples Stocks" prices soared during economic market crash, pay cuts, increasing UE & expansion of food-stamps.



You know... Every time I hear one of you dunderheads parrot your anti-Walmart meme, it makes me want to go spend money there. What we should ban is you and your occtarded friends from any and all political debate in this country. You're a socialist, and not the good kind. 

So Walmart has captured 18% of the SNAP market? My question is, how come that number is so low? The largest retail outlet in the world who guarantees to match any competitors price, should have at least 80% of the market across the board. I guess when you're spending free SNAP money, saving isn't a priority so you don't go to Walmart?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Your alternate meal of vegetable soup, salad and juice contains no protein (and they'd be better off eating the fruit rather than drinking just the juice).  The person eating this meal will be hungry shortly afterwards.  Throw in some chicken/beef/pork/tofu and a baked potato (yes with butter and yes use some evoo in the cooking process and/or salad dressing) and not only will their energy and blood sugar levels be steadier, they will be satiated much longer.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 9, 2015)

It's more of what shouldn't be allowed to be purchased with food stamps.   My list would include:  alcohol, junk food --  the pre-packaged crap foods like chips, cookies, sugary cereals, cake mixes, canned frosty, sodas, fake fruit drinks ... things of that nature.  If a food stamp recipient wants to purchase these types of foods they can use their own money, not taxpayers money.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 9, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > She said we should limit them.  I said we did once, under Clinton.  I was referring to "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996."  Go ahead and Google it yourself, ya jerk.
> ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Nice graph.

Is there a point you wanted to make, since the graph supports what I said?


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 9, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



What you said was not in English.  The graph shows the result of the welfare reform act vs. the act of throwing the rules in the act out the door.


----------



## Boss (Apr 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> I am shocked that in this day and age there are people like you who don't know the difference between healthy nutrition and foods that cause health problems. I gave you an example when I used the cheeseburger, fries and shake example. In that post I suggested that instead of that unhealthy meal it be substituted for a bowl of vegetable soup, a salad and juice. My selection would cost less and offer nutritional value. The burger, fries and shake meal offers, artery clogging cholesterol and diabetes causing carbs and sugar. Both of these diseases are epidemics in this country by the way and their is no debate about their causes. You and anyone else has the right to eat them as much as you want, or in moderation, or not at all. My argument is that society and the tax payer should no more pay for those negative food items than they should pay for beer and wine, which by the way is healthier than the burger and fries and ice cream shake. If we pay for milk and juice, why not pay for beer and whine? That seems to be your theory.



Once we start down the road of micromanaging what is healthy and nutritious, it can grow very ridiculous rather quickly. No two people are the same, they have different metabolisms, etc. There is also the unmentioned issue of allergies. Not everyone can eat the same thing. 

Chewing your food properly is very important to digestion. If you don't chew your food well, it causes red meat to clog your bowels and colon and you get cancer. So maybe we need to mandate a federal agent to monitor how you are chewing the food we give you on welfare? While we're at it, it's also important to your health to burn those calories you intake, so maybe we also need a federal personal fitness trainer to ensure you're getting adequate exercise so you remain healthy and save us all that money? 

Our government should not be involved in ANY of this! It's ridiculous and absurd, the level we've gotten to in this country and it needs to change. The government is not there to make sure you eat right or that you eat at all. It's not their damn business!


----------



## Boss (Apr 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Your graph disproves your claim that anything has been reduced or limited. It clearly shows that despite the laws passed, we continue to spend more and more on welfare.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


You seem to be having temporal problems.  I can't help you if you can't think over ranges of time.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> You seem to be having temporal problems.  I can't help you if you can't think over ranges of time.



Dude, the Heritage graph shows Welfare continuing to rise with no change after Clinton. Welfare reform was a farce.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 9, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to be having temporal problems.  I can't help you if you can't think over ranges of time.
> ...


So you don't know how to read even a basic chart?  Did you have some sort of head trauma?


----------



## Boss (Apr 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> So you don't know how to read even a basic chart?  Did you have some sort of head trauma?



Brown, we know how to read one but we're wondering if you do. 

The chart shows a steady increase in welfare spending. You  were supposed to be showing where welfare spending was limited, curtailed, cut back, slowed down or something other than increased. You failed. 

It's not even a matter of semantics or your infantile grasp of context this time. Is this one of those things where you've dug the hole so deep you figure to just keep digging? Maybe you think the chart is like one of those hidden image pictures and if we stare at it long enough you will be vindicated? Or maybe you're just a true-to-form liberal jackass braying his lies over and over in order to turn them into truths? 

Whatever the case, you're definitely mental.


----------



## Politico (Apr 10, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> xdangerousxdavex said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...


And Diabetes.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > So you don't know how to read even a basic chart?  Did you have some sort of head trauma?
> ...


Welfare Spending Did Go Down for a few years During the Clinton Administration. That NEVER EVER happened under Reagan, Bush or Bush!






Reagan Bush were a Joke that you idiots worship!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 10, 2015)

Camp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


 
Ah, yes.  The proverbial liberal shock that someone doesn't know which opinion is officially allowed and mandated.  Particularly if it allows you to bloviate a bunch more and totally avoid the question.

Still waiting for you to tell me what foods you would have on your approved food stamp list.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 10, 2015)

Zoom-boing said:


> It's more of what shouldn't be allowed to be purchased with food stamps.   My list would include:  alcohol, junk food --  the pre-packaged crap foods like chips, cookies, sugary cereals, cake mixes, canned frosty, sodas, fake fruit drinks ... things of that nature.  If a food stamp recipient wants to purchase these types of foods they can use their own money, not taxpayers money.


 
You already can't purchase alcohol with food stamps, just FYI.  Except things like cooking sherry, I think.  Not clear on that one.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 10, 2015)

Also, for those who are outraged at people spending food stamps on "expensive luxury items" like seafood, what about the fact that it's a much healthier source of protein than red meat?  What about states where seafood is so plentiful that it's one of the cheapest meats available?  Would we have different "acceptable foods" lists for each locale, dependent on what's cheap and what isn't?

After I had my abdominal surgery, fish and shellfish were the only proteins my stomach could tolerate.  Beef and pork sat in there like a rock, and poultry of any kind made me vomit.  Had I been on food stamps at the time, these sorts of restrictions would have left me struggling to get the protein I needed to heal and get well.  Do we really want to get into a morass of personal exceptions for people with dietary restrictions on top of everything else?


----------



## xdangerousxdavex (Apr 10, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> If you don't mind rickets...


Rickets? It's a childhood disease, and it caused not by eating porridges.


----------



## Camp (Apr 10, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


There are endless list of foods that are nutritional and foods that are low on nutrition value or actually harmful. The topic has been covered by educational, government and private entities. Pollock, particularly Alaskan pollock is one of several fishes used to make "imitation" lobster and crab. Whitefish is another one. Both are more nutritional and less expensive than pure lobster or crab. Childrens cereal is another example. There are many kids friendly cereals that limit the amounts of sugar used in the finished product. There are however many cereals that have so much sugar in them that they actually are harmful when consumed over time, leading to all kinds of medical problems. The lists are endless and available in abundance from all kinds of sources, including highly respected medical institutions.
You can fairly make the argument that steaks and lobster can be used in economic ways, but you can not justify foods that create negative health results and increased medical cost being paid by the government for persons on public assistance. An apple or orange is healthier than a candy bar. What is so hard to understand about that.


----------



## JFK_USA (Apr 10, 2015)

The thing about this is enforcement. 

What is seafood? Do Fish sticks count? Tilapia is very affordable on a budget and healthy. 

But this poor shaming Republicans do is just sickening and leads to many of the problems we see like drug use and the crime associated with it. And most people don't choose to be poor and the barriers to getting out of poverty are so high. You don't magically become rich being on welfare, you are just trying to get by and survive. It's disgusting what people do to the less fortunate and yet call themselves "Christian"


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 10, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't mind rickets...
> ...


 
Porridges?  Rickets is caused by Vitamin D deficiency.  Not sure what porridges have to do with it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 10, 2015)

Camp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


 
In other words, you have no intention of ever answering the question instead of throwing up a wall of blather.  You just think it's a spiffy idea for government to control people's lives, and you'll just wait around for someone else to do the thinking and hand you some talking points to enthuse about.

Got it.  Thank you.  Dismissed.


----------



## Camp (Apr 10, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I have repeatedly answered your question. In some cases with a good bit of detail. What exactly are you looking for? Do you expect me to give you a long list of foods that could belong on a list and a long list of foods that could be off a list? How about if you answer whether you think tax payers should pay for candy bars, ice cream and soda pop. Those would be the first things I put on an unavailable list.


----------



## RKMBrown (Apr 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > So you don't know how to read even a basic chart?  Did you have some sort of head trauma?
> ...


Nah, your just an effing moron that can't read a chart.  Hint, the bottom line indicates YEARS. Ask a five year old child to show you the parts in the chart where welfare did not go up for YEARS.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 11, 2015)

Here's a guy who tried to live for a couple weeks on $4 a day...only a little less than most SNAP recipients who often have to go for months on that amount in this jobless "recovery":

5 things one executive learned from spending only 4 a day on food for 2 weeks - Yahoo Finance


----------



## BlueGin (Apr 11, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Here's a guy who tried to live for a couple weeks on $4 a day...only a little less than most SNAP recipients who often have to go for months on that amount in this jobless "recovery":
> 
> 5 things one executive learned from spending only 4 a day on food for 2 weeks - Yahoo Finance



Yep. I watched a similar video about a college professor that got his students to do this as a project. They lived on a diet. Of hot dogs, bologna,bread, ramen noodles,oranges and lettuce.

It can can be done in a pinch.


----------



## BlueGin (Apr 11, 2015)

But back to steak and seafood. Just priced it last night. Steak at Albertsons 6.50 pkg of two and also buy one get one. Crab legs 6.99 a pound, schrimp on sale 4.99 a pound.

That's not that bad IMO.


----------



## BullKurtz (Apr 11, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Yep. I watched a similar video about a college professor that got his students to do this as a project. They lived on a diet. Of hot dogs, bologna,bread, ramen noodles,oranges and lettuce.
> 
> It can can be done in a pinch.



In a pinch yeah, but imagine that's your diet for months or years.  Without Walmart and other discount stores, there would be little recourse for some of these people to start stealing food, escalating into armed robberies.   I see no reason why benefits can't be capped like unemployment...two years at $10 a day.   That way a person can eat nutritious food that is healthy and produces energy....after two weeks the guy in my link was already feeling sick.


----------



## BlueGin (Apr 11, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Yep. I watched a similar video about a college professor that got his students to do this as a project. They lived on a diet. Of hot dogs, bologna,bread, ramen noodles,oranges and lettuce.
> ...



I think that Snap is more than that in this state. I know a few people who were getting 125.00 a month.

But yes... I agree with you. It needs to be at least enough for a person to buy produce and other healthy items.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 11, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> But back to steak and seafood. Just priced it last night. Steak at Albertsons 6.50 pkg of two and also buy one get one. Crab legs 6.99 a pound, schrimp on sale 4.99 a pound.
> 
> That's not that bad IMO.



Filet mignion was $14.99/lb at Giant supermarket.


----------



## Politico (Apr 12, 2015)

Bluegin lives in the Food Network fantasy world where Lobster is $3.99 a pound in Flavortown Market.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 12, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't mind rickets...
> ...


Scurvy was common among sailors, pirates and others aboard ships at sea longer than perishable fruits and vegetables could be stored (subsisting instead only on cured meats & dried grains.) Also among soldiers & others similarly deprived of these foods for extended periods.


----------



## WinterBorn (Apr 12, 2015)

I am not willing to read 56 pages of posts, so forgive me if what I say has been said.

If we are going to regulate what foods they are allowed to buy, why are we wasting time on the nutritious stuff?

I'd rather they buy steak & seafood than Twinkies & Capt Crunch.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 12, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> BullKurtz said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...



You DO realize that the "S" in SNAP stands for "supplemental".  As in, it's not intended to be your entire food budget; it's intended to provide a supplement to what you already earn.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 12, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> I am not willing to read 56 pages of posts, so forgive me if what I say has been said.
> 
> If we are going to regulate what foods they are allowed to buy, why are we wasting time on the nutritious stuff?
> 
> I'd rather they buy steak & seafood than Twinkies & Capt Crunch.



It all depends entirely on who is doing the limiting and why.  One of the many problems with the idea.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 12, 2015)

KissMy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Yes it did go down.   The Republicans got control of congress in 1994.  In 1995 they had the contract with America, and the budget battle.  Part of that deals was welfare reform.

Republicans sent welfare reform to Clinton 3 times.  He veto'd it twice, and finally signed the third one into law while promising to "fix it" later.

Instead welfare reform was a massive success, and welfare rolls declined year over year.


----------



## BlueGin (Apr 12, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > BullKurtz said:
> ...



Yes. And I don't agree with it being used for anything other than a supplement to your current earnings if a person qualifies .


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 12, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...



Quite true.  If you can work, you should be.  If you can't, then you have some other sort of income.


----------



## AntiParty (Apr 13, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?



There is a huge problem with welfare fraud. How to deal with it is the good debate and you are taking a step into it.  Before it was "Cut food stamps for everyone because some abuse it!"

I like to look at welfare projects as though everyone is blind. When you cut all food stamps, you cut food supply to that blind person and don't even come close to fixing the actual issue. Many criminals are found with dozens of EBT cards they trade for drugs. Just research it.

So the debate is now, "Should a welfare fraud piece of crap have steak and shrimp" vs. a blind person.

I could type days about this topic if America was anywhere near recognizing this very obvious gap. Great post.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 13, 2015)

So I was looking at Gwyneth Paltrow's food picks for a week on $29, and noticed something (I'm not the only one).  These are food picks for someone who has to look like a stick figure, whose job is basically to look pretty, who has a car and servants to clean her house and take care of her kids.  Real poor people have much more labor-intensive lives, and require a much higher calorie count than Ms. Paltrow apparently considers healthy.

What concerns me is that limousine liberals, with their unrealistic view of the real world the rest of us live in would be in charge of deciding the "healthy limits" for SNAP purchases when liberals are in power, and they clearly don't have a clue.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 13, 2015)

Some people might remember my history of being more liberal in the past (high school years).  I used to not have a strong opinion on food stamps either way.

Then I got a job working for the now defunct Big Bear grocery store chain.  You want to talk about having a paradigm shift.

The first time was this chick who walked in, talking on her cell phone.  (cell phones were both rare and expensive in 2001-2002)   She rang up cases of Mountain Dew, and Jolt, plus bags of Frito.   All with food stamps.  Then rang up cases of beer.   Meanwhile, she's talking on her phone about how her parents bought her a condo (in an expensive area of town) to live in while she was doing to OSU.

Then another time a lady came in, and she bought a ton of stuff, and got most of it on food stamps.   And she looked like she crawled out from under a rock.  So I thought, well maybe she really needs it.   It was a slow day, and I looked out the window, and saw her climb into a late model mint condition Cadillac.  At the time, I was in my 1990 200K+ Mile Chevy Lumina, and I'm working 40 hours for my food.

So... yeah my views on food assistance dramatically hardened.

My view?  No food assistance at all.  Zero.  You want food?  You can leave mommy&daddies condo, and waddle your butt to your luxury car, and drive it to the food pantry.   There's your free food.


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 13, 2015)

Nutritionally speaking, a significant percentage of long-term welfare recipients live on diets deficient in Vitamin W.

Work.


----------



## quorthon (Jul 9, 2015)




----------



## JOSweetHeart (Jul 9, 2015)

To me, if a person is given any kind of help, they should be responsible with it and in my opinion splurging every five seconds is not responsible. Try to save what you can for later because you will never know how things will be then until you are finally there.

God bless you always!!!   

Holly


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 9, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Some people might remember my history of being more liberal in the past (high school years).  I used to not have a strong opinion on food stamps either way.
> 
> Then I got a job working for the now defunct Big Bear grocery store chain.  You want to talk about having a paradigm shift.
> 
> ...




I can see how you might make such a broad decision on the basis of two people who you didn't even know. It's what the right encourages you to do.


----------



## Boss (Jul 9, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Some people might remember my history of being more liberal in the past (high school years).  I used to not have a strong opinion on food stamps either way.
> 
> Then I got a job working for the now defunct Big Bear grocery store chain.  You want to talk about having a paradigm shift.
> 
> ...



I am not quite so cynical. A lot of people are on food stamps because they can't help the situation they are in. It's not a matter of being lazy or unmotivated, it's just the circumstances of life. I am a truly blessed person who doesn't have to worry about much financially but there was a time in my life where things were much different. I can recall making "ketchup soup" for dinner... (from condiment ketchup packs) If lucky, I had crackers too! It's not fun to be so poor you can't buy basic food. 

So I can see where we as a society have a responsibility to do  what we can to help those who are truly in need of assistance. The problem is, it has gotten way out of control. A single food stamp recipient in Alabama gets around $200 a month. If you have 3-4 kids you can get up to $1200 a month.  Now, I am not what you would call "affluent" or anything, I'm a single person who eats what he likes and I don't spend $200 a month on groceries. And then we have the massive amount of absolute fraud going on that isn't being caught. We've got people selling their food stamps for drugs, using them to barter for things they can't buy with food stamps... people double and triple-dipping, claiming the same kids as dependents... all sorts of scams and cons. None of it is being addressed, we just keep throwing more appropriated billions at it every year. 

Here's MY idea... End SNAP entirely. No more Food Stamps. Take 50% of what is currently budgeted for SNAP and send it to the State Agriculture Departments. They will be required to use the money to support a food truck delivery to each county twice a month. The truck will deliver surplus food to a distribution center where poor families and individuals can go and obtain basic food items. [This is actually the system we used before food stamps.]


----------



## tigerred59 (Jul 9, 2015)

quorthon said:


>



*Let me give you a real definition of a welfare reciepitant......one who doesn't work, mooches off tax payers, gets perks up the ass, who works about 4 months out of a 12 month year, the rest is either campaigning or lyin to their constituents....uhmmmmmm, lets see...SOUNDS LIKE TODAYS CONSERVATIVE CONGRESS TO ME!!*


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Some people might remember my history of being more liberal in the past (high school years).  I used to not have a strong opinion on food stamps either way.
> ...



Yeah, I am cynical.   Very cynical.   And I should be, and so should any rational American.  We're one of the few nations in the world, where "poor people" have a higher obesity rate than any other income class of citizens.

  Where are these people that can't help it?   I've been working among the poor my whole life.  I'll likely only pull $20K this year too.    I've met dozens of people who used food stamps.  Not once... not one time yet, have I met someone that "couldn't help it".

Where are they?   When the Republicans pushed through welfare reform in the 90s, people screamed that all these poor people who "couldn't help it" would be starving and die.

Food stamp rolls fell by almost half, and yet..... no one starved... no one died....   How could that be?  Where did all the people who couldn't help it go?    Apparently they got jobs, and fed themselves.   Apparently.....  they COULD help it.

Every time someone says "this person can't help it", it's almost predictable what I see.    They have beer.... smoking sticks... smart phone....  three kids and no husband, and never had a husband.    It's always, and I do mean ALWAYS something similar to that every single time.

Some dumb chick spreads her legs for a guy she's not married to, and you think it's my duty to feed her, and her fatherless kids?   You are crazy.

I asked this one chick, why doesn't she get help from her family.  "oh well I ran away from them years ago, and haven't spoken."

That's my fault, that I must pay for you, because your pride won't let you ask your parents for help?

Now I don't have a problem helping people......  when it's *MY* choice.   Not coerced by the government.   You screwing up your own life, does not entitle you to my hard worked for earnings.   I have no problem with charity.   Provided it is actually CHARITY.   Charity, doesn't involve men with guns confiscating your money, and that's where I have the problem.

People that are poor, do not "DESERVE" anything.  You are not 'owed' by society, because you were an idiot, and screwed up your life.  Sorry.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 9, 2015)

tigerred59 said:


> quorthon said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



That could be equally applied to every single politician.

Here's the difference.  The leftists promote this.     We don't.

In order to have people work in congress without pay, they have to have money, and business.

But you people on the left, attack anyone that has money or business.   Remember Cheney and Halliburton?   You people went into a 5-year-old temper tantrum over that.

So what does that position support?   Electing people into government who have no private business or money.    Obama is the poster child for the exact "*one who doesn't work, mooches off tax payers, gets perks up the ass, who works about 4 months out of a 12 month year, the rest is either campaigning or lyin to their constituents"* you just referenced.

Obama has yet to spend one entire day working an honest job.  He has never once, run a company, or worked in the private sector.   This is a man who has lived off the tax payers for his entire life.

So which party stands for that?   Democrats, or Republicans?


----------



## tigerred59 (Jul 9, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> > quorthon said:
> ...



Here's the difference.  The leftists promote this.     We don't. Now I will give you facts...The 2014 calendar for the House was released Thursday by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and shows members will only work only *113 days*. That's down from 2013, when House lawmakers were scheduled to meet for *126 days*.

In order to have people work in congress without pay, they have to have money, and business.

But you people on the left, attack anyone that has money or business.   Remember Cheney and Halliburton?   You people went into a 5-year-old temper tantrum over that. Now I will give you more facts....Halliburton will pay the Pentagon $6.3 million for possible overcharges by a subcontractor that is accused of giving kickbacks to supply U.S. soldiers in Iraq, a spokeswoman said Friday in new trouble for Vice President Dick Cheney's former company.

So what does that position support?   Electing people into government who have no private business or money.    Obama is the poster child for the exact "*one who doesn't work, mooches off tax payers, gets perks up the ass, who works about 4 months out of a 12 month year, the rest is either campaigning or lyin to their constituents"* you just referenced. You really don't want me to list his accomplishments, it would take all day.

Obama has yet to spend one entire day working an honest job.  He has never once, run a company, or worked in the private sector.   This is a man who has lived off the tax payers for his entire life. (sigh)...more facts for you dumb white ass.....
A:According to one count, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush spent more time on "vacation" during their first year than President Obama did. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton spent less time on "vacation."
On Aug. 8, 2014, Knoller tweeted that Obama had taken 19 vacations totaling 125 days so far while in office. Those numbers have risen a bit due to the Martha’s Vineyard vacation, but that’s still many fewer thanGeorge W. Bush’s 65 combined trips to his Texas ranch and his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine, which totaled 407 days at the same point in his presidency.

I HOPE YOUR DUMB ASS IS SITTING DOWN, NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP FOOL!!


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 9, 2015)

tigerred59 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > tigerred59 said:
> ...



Point one, was irrelevant.   Whether they work 113 days or 126....  who cares?   Either one they are living off of tax payers like me.   Making such a childish argument is like "that pile of dog poop is bigger than my pile of dog poop".... if that's your argument, then you have none.

Further, you just made my argument, by complaining about Halliburton again.   Thanks.  That made my point.

As for Obama's "accomplishments".... again, that's irrelevant to my point.   Doesn't matter what you think he accomplished.   Has the man spent one full day in the private sector EARNING a pay check?   Or has he lived off tax payers his entire life up to now?    Answer.... lived off tax payers.   He's NEVER held an honest job, no matter what his accomplishments are.

Do you ever actually discuss the topic of the post?  Or do you just randomly spout irrelevant factoids of no value?   Doesn't matter how much time he spent on vacation or not.   He's not working at a private company.     He's working off the tax payers.   We're paying for his entire life, no matter what he does, or where he does it.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jul 9, 2015)

Beef's bad for ya, seafood's worse. 

Trust Big Brother. Big Brother lubs you.


----------



## Boss (Jul 10, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



I like your tenacity, reminds me a lot of Mark Levin. I can't argue with what you're saying because you're absolutely right. I don't have a problem with some of my tax dollars being used to feed people who can't help the situations they find themselves in. I personally don't have a problem with us all doing that through our taxes, it benefits us all to be charitable. But the line was crossed years ago and there has been no turning back. 

I am a Conservative. What that means is, I don't generally go for radical changes. I wouldn't want us to pull the plug on all Federal social services. I think there is a middle point where we can assist the truly needy but not be totally bat-shit crazy. With our agricultural resources, there is no reason we can't feed every hungry family in America. We can do this for FAR FAR less through State Ag departments with help from USDA. I know we could do it because we used to do it, before Food Stamps.  

Bud sadly enough... You are probably correct... It's probably too late for anything other than stark radical change because that is what is going to happen sooner or later. Either we make some hard choices now or those choices will be made for us later. The liberals seem to have decided on a no-holds-barred expansionism that is unprecedented and unsustainable... They are like Thelma and Louise at this point.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




SNAP, which used to be called food stamps, is under the control of USDA


----------



## NoNukes (Jul 10, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?


Cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks are luxury items?


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The only time I see tax dollars being given to people justified, is when we're dealing with someone who is actually mentally disabled, and can't work.   Or physically disabled and can't work.    Even then, I think physically disabled people who work.


So here's a guy with no arms or legs, and he has a degree, and buys and sells real estate.

Nevertheless, I accept that.

But again, it's not charity.   Taxes is not charity.    When you use the power of government to force people at the end of a gun, to steal money from private people, and give it to others, there is no possible way you can call that "charity".

If I come to your home, and shove a gun in your face, demand your money, and on my way home afterwards, give $50 to a homeless guy on the street....   no one anywhere would conclude "wow, that's was some compassionate charity there!"

Charity is you as an individual, having money that you earned in your pocket, and making the individual choice to give it to someone else.

That's charity.

You can also tell the difference between charity and coercion, based on how recipients act.    When you give charity to people who are really in difficulty, they are appreciative of the action, because they know you didn't have to do it.

People on welfare NEVER appreciate welfare or food stamps, and why should they?  They are "entitled to it".  You didn't do because you cared about them.  You did it because you had no choice.    Why should they appreciate your sacrifice for their benefits, when you didn't have any other option?

And they don't.  If anything, they are angry with society for not giving them more.   So again, my position, they should get NOTHING. Zero.  Cancel food stamps, welfare, and everything else.


----------



## Boss (Jul 10, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Again, I can't argue with what you're saying, I agree in principle. But let me ask you this... How much chance do you think any politician would have getting elected with the promise to end all social welfare programs? 

While it's alright in principle, doesn't mean it would work in practice. Yes, of course, we would save lots of money by not paying welfare recipients but there would also be an undesirable consequence. Do we really want to see malnourished, pot-bellied starving black children from Mississippi on every nightly news program? Do you want to deal with the liberal left armed with images and stories of people who are literally starving to death due to your elimination of all safety nets? 

Now you and I might be able to handle that because we know it's the right principle... but most of America would be ready to lynch us after about a year of no welfare. I respect your idea and I agree in principle, I just don't think it would work in practice. 

I would rather see us approach things pragmatically and eliminate the waste, fraud, redundancy, abuse of some programs or totally eliminate programs that aren't working. Replace Food Stamps (SNAP) with the old commodity trucks and feed the hungry with agricultural surplus. This is a much better (and cheaper) idea than giving them a credit card.


----------



## Boss (Jul 10, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Well yes, I understand that. I haven't said otherwise. It's not about who is in charge of the dysfunctional and abused joke of a program. It's about changing the program to something that works better. 

Why do people think it's a brilliant idea to give a bunch of poor folks a credit card and expect them to make sound purchasing decisions? I mean, no disrespect, but most poor people don't exactly have the financial acumen of Donald Trump... that's why they are poor. You don't see many poor people running banks, do you? 

Rather than naively expecting people to be responsible, establish a system that doesn't depend on that. Feed the hungry people by giving them vouchers to use at the food center which is stocked with agricultural surplus (which we have an abundance of). They won't be able to buy DiGiorno pizzas and Häagen-Dazs ice cream... they'll have access to fresh farm produce instead.


----------



## tresbigdog (Jul 10, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > BullKurtz said:
> ...



and if you don't earn anything, then.......???


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 10, 2015)

tresbigdog said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...


 You better start earning something. It's meant to keep people from starving. It's not meant to Keep You in the Manner You Think You Deserve.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Got it. Poor people are only poor because they are dumb. Thanks for putting the right wing philosophy is such a concise form.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well my goal has never been to find a politician, or convince any politicians, to do what is best.

Why?  Because they are politicians.    Politicians are rarely, if ever, interested in doing what they actually think is best for the country.   And when a politician does stand up for what he thinks is best, over what is politically advantageous..... the public always HATES them for it.

John McCain at a rally in Detroit, suggested that maybe those high paying Union jobs were not coming back, and that people should plan to find other employment.

They HATED McCain for saying that.

Bush really believed that Iraq was necessary.   Whether it was or not, Bush really believed it, and stood for what he believed.  People HATE Bush for doing that.

Trump today has said something things that he really believes.  People are attacking him for it.

The American public is bonkers on this.   We claim to hate it when politicians lie... claim to hate politicians that say anything at all to get elected.... claim we want a politician that stands up for what he believes is right.     Yet the moment anyone even gets close to acting the way we claim we want, we viciously attack them for it.

And worse, it's only a week later, someone will be complaining bitterly "it's only a choice of the lesser of two evils.  Why are there never any good people running in elections?"  Bonkers. A whole nation of bonkers.   This is why we were never supposed to be a democracy.

*So, to answer your question... of course not.  If a politician were to stand up and say it's wrong to force hard working people who earn their wages, to pay higher taxes to fund programs that give money to fat lazy people so they can sit at home and do nothing and yet eat....   Yeah, he doesn't stand a chance.*

That's why I'm not writing this in a letter to some politician somewhere.  I"m writing this to the American public.  We need to change the attitudes of Americans....   When that changes, the politicians will follow.

Ironically.... I just had an enlightening conversation today with a German immigrant.  She married an evil white male American, and moved to the US.   Just today, someone whom I didn't know, started asking her about the welfare system in Germany.   Funny how the liberals always talk about how extensive the European welfare system is... apparently it's not quite....

She said the crazy aspect of America is that we pay people to not work.   Again, this is just what she told this other guy (I just happen to be in ear shot), she said that in Germany, they have a great welfare system, but..... you have to work.   You can't get food assistance, unless you work a full time job.

If you are working, but just not making tons of cash, then you can qualify for assistance.   But if you don't have a job at all... you don't get jack.

Shockingly, not very many people remain unemployed long.

As for the all to common claim that people will be starving.... I don't buy it.  I think you are just making up fabricated tales, to justify welfare and food stamps.   "malnourished, pot-bellied starving black children"... Bull.    Farts in the wind.    Poor people have a HIGHER obesity rate than the general population.

If anything, forcing them to work for a living, would get them in shape.







It would be years for some of these people to get even 'thin', let alone starving.   Maybe she can cut the cigarettes, and buy some rice with the money?   Crazy thought.

Again, food stamp rolls in the 90s, drastically fell.  Millions.... literally millions of "poor black children" kicked off the welfare rolls.

Do you remember all those "malnourished, pot-bellied starving black children" on the nightly news during the 90s?   Me neither.

It's fiction.     Hunger is a major motivating factor.   When I was broke, I worked 2 jobs.  At one point, 3 jobs.   One in the morning, one at night, and one on the weekends.

If I can do it, they can do it.  It's a choice.  They don't want to, and they don't have to, because we're paying them to be lazy.

They can do it, if we deny them the ability to not work.    And honestly, as far as I'm concerned, if you don't work, you shouldn't eat.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 11, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Yes.  Why can't you people figure this out?   And not "dumb" as in Forest Gump dumb... but dumb as in making bad choices.  Yes, that is exactly true.  100%, you got it.  That's how life works.  You reap what you sow.  You blow all your money... you end up poor.   Cause and effect. 

Why the left thinks it's rational to pretend otherwise, is beyond me.  Maybe they actually are dumb, as in the Forest Gump dumb.


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



I didn't say they were dumb, they just aren't generally very good at money matters. People who handle money and finances well, generally aren't poor. Now that doesn't mean the poor person is dumb, they may have many talents and smarts in other things. People are all different. 

My problem is giving these people a credit card and turning them loose in a grocery store expecting them to behave responsibly.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Exactly.   Michael Jackson was bankrupt before he died.   The whole reason he started the "This is It" tour which led to his death, is explicitly because he was broke.

You can be very talented, and very smart in other areas, and yet still be broke.


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Exactly. Michael Jackson was bankrupt before he died. The whole reason he started the "This is It" tour which led to his death, is explicitly because he was broke.
> 
> You can be very talented, and very smart in other areas, and yet still be broke.



Let me present two real examples in my own personal life. 

#1- I have a close personal friend who is worth about $30 million according to Forbes. For the past 20 years, he has paid virtually no income tax because he doesn't earn an income. By any measure, he is "wealthy" and he lives a fairly opulent lifestyle. He doesn't give a rat's ass if you raise the top marginal tax rates, he is never going to earn the kind of income it would effect. He does receive dividends on his stock holdings and investments, but many of these are tax-free. But even the total amount he realizes in annual dividends wouldn't put him anywhere near the top tax bracket. 

#2- A woman who is a close friend recently had her father pass away. Her and her siblings were left an inheritance of around $200k each. Her husband has a decent job as a pipe fitter making about $20 an hour, so they are living a fairly upward-middle-class lifestyle. They have three kids in high school, so things aren't cheap for them and they aren't "wealthy" by any measure. The $200k windfall along with his salary, puts  them in the top marginal tax bracket for this year. 

So is a high top marginal tax rate having any effect on the wealthy person? Nope. Is it helping the upward-middle-class family? Nope. It is merely an ignorant and simple-minded viewpoint the left has regarding taxation. They ASSUME that a high income earned means the person is rich and it simply doesn't. The overwhelming majority of opulently rich people do not earn taxable incomes, and IF they do, they don't fall within the top marginal rates. The overwhelming majority of top income earners are actually small businesses who (by law) file their taxes as individuals. These are NOT the opulent wealthy by any means.


----------



## KissMy (Jul 12, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



So you two believe in big government nanny state taking care of workers, because they can't be trusted to make their own decisions if companies paid them & they spent their own money how they wanted?


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 13, 2015)

KissMy said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



We pointed out that people who use money wisely end up wealthy, and those that waste money poorly, end up impoverished.

From that you concluded that we support big government taking care of workers because they can't be trusted to make their own decisions?

No.   My entire point was exactly the opposite.  People should be allowed to make their own decisions, and that the wise should not be punished to subsidize the foolish.

We should not punish those who made intelligent choices with money and became wealthy, to fund those who make foolish choices and become poor.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> We should not punish those who made intelligent choices with money and became wealthy, to fund those who make foolish choices and become poor.



It should also be pointed out to the little commies that, unlike a socialist system, our free market and free enterprise system doesn't confine people to the same economic class their entire life. In this country, people routinely go from poor to middle class, from middle class to wealthy, from wealthy back to middle class and from middle class to poor. This often changes numerous times during the course of one's life. 

They speak of "the middle class" like they are some kind of permanent economic class that never changes and that's just not accurate. You are free in this country to obtain as much wealth as you please and millions upon millions of penniless immigrants have come here and done precisely that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Much more expensive in overhead, to start with.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 13, 2015)

tresbigdog said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...



Why on Earth would you have no income whatsoever?  If you can't work, you have disability, or Social Security, or TANF, or something.  Hell, even homeless transients bring in money from panhandling and collecting recyclables.  I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any significant number of adults in this country who have no access whatsoever to some sort of cash.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It's really none of your business.....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 13, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



And in all seriousness, if they're so useless that they will let their children starve rather than put themselves to any effort to feed them, we'd be better off building orphanages than paying those sorts of people to play "parent" just because they ovulated or ejaculated or whatever.

Personally, while I know there are a lot of crappy parents in the world, I certainly don't believe that a large percentage of poor people are THAT bad.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 13, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Well, since it's a government program funded by tax dollars, it kinda IS our business.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 13, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Do you tell Mobile what to do with their govt. subsidies that the US gives them, or in other words, corporate welfare? Do you complain to rural clinics on how they use grant monies?


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 13, 2015)

How many times have you bitched at a farmer for how he spent his crop money he was paid for letting his land set idle?


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 13, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?



If you are on food stamps, you should only eat highly processed food, and the fattiest of meats.  We want these people to become a bigger problem with their health,so that we can pay for their hospital bills too.  It amazes me how so many people have no problem with major corporations getting all kinds of subsidies and tax breaks to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, but these same people just hate the poor bastards who are on food stamps.  We have become a really fucked up society.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Well... see... it's MY MONEY, so it IS my business. Sorry asswipe.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, it's the govt's money, you gave it up when you payed taxes...And it's only a small percentage of the taxes used for this program...The churches and food panties do not follow you home to see what you are doing with their charity...


----------



## Boss (Jul 14, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> No, it's the govt's money, you gave it up when you payed taxes...



No I didn't because I live in a FREE society, not Russia.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 14, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Government dictates to companies all the time.  Constantly.  It's so routine, it's considered normal.

Second, Government doesn't subsidize Mobile.  The way they control companies like Mobile, is by threatening to "do an environmental study", which conveniently costs millions, and takes decades.

And if companies do not pay up, with special interest groups, and funding NPR, and other public works, not mention millions in lobbying, then they end up like Microsoft... in court for years defending the right to simply make their own product.

So the answer to your question is *YES* we do tell companies what to do CONSTANTLY. 

Regardless, if you are taking my tax money, I'm going to start telling you want to do.   Why you don't get this, is beyond me.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 14, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Congrats you outlined the argument of every tyrannical government in human history.  Stalin would be proud.


----------



## tresbigdog (Jul 15, 2015)

there are people who have been denied SSI (social security disability) and are in the process of appeals, etc.  If they have no children, they don't qualify for cash assistance, at least here in Ohio.  I work for Jobs & Family Services, believe me, we see it more than youd think


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 18, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



I complain that the federal government is funding and meddling in things that aren't properly their area.

But since it IS federal money, and it IS subject to federal regulations and restrictions on it, then technically, we DO all tell Mobile and whoever else what to do with federal grant money.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 18, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> How many times have you bitched at a farmer for how he spent his crop money he was paid for letting his land set idle?



Usually too busy bitching that we're paying tax money to farmers to let their land sit idle in the first place.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 18, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> timslash said:
> 
> 
> > That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> ...



Maybe you ought to start by losing the idea that these people are helpless children who need you to hold their hands and wipe their asses.  You wanna support them, and THEN you want to tell them how to live their lives.  Perhaps if you quit condescending to them and nannying them, they'd figure out for themselves not to get fat and unhealthy.


----------



## blunthead (Jul 18, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Bastard.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 18, 2015)

steak and sea food is good for you 

what they should ban is soda pop candy and pre done foods


----------



## blunthead (Jul 18, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> The main recipients of food stamps are children, elderly, veterans, disabled and of course, that most hated of all Americans, single mothers whose children's fathers have run out on them. *Its very important to the right to punish people for being poor and to do anything and everything to keep them that way.
> 
> Whaddaya wanna bet Brattin calls himself a "christian".*
> 
> ...


*"Its very important to the right to punish people for being poor and to do anything and everything to keep them that way.
*
*Whaddaya wanna bet Brattin calls himself a "christian".*" I hope you don't mind if I object to your tone, not to mention the fact that you're assumptions are exceptionally inaccurate. And, do you always behave as you think a "christian" should? No? Why not? Why impose on anyone something that you yourself don't believe in? Who's the greater hypocrite?

Your emotionally charged rude language offends me. I expect you to respond just as rudely. I can handle it, but I shouldn't have to.

Meanwhile wtf does Brattin's salary have to do with how much American taxpayers should be ripped off so someone else can eat better than him? Again, your just another knee-jerk, ignorant liberal hater.


----------



## blunthead (Jul 18, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Lots of them really are. You haven't seen videos of some of them being interviewed. It's scarier than hell just how dumb some people are. They're not intrinsically stupid, they just have grown up in an environment which doesn't consider education valuable. Who needs an education anyway if you believe you must depend on the government to give you what keeps you alive?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jul 18, 2015)

blunthead said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




There have always been dumb people. Some are so dumb that they belittle an entire class of people just because the TV station they watch doesn't show anything else.


----------



## blunthead (Jul 18, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> blunthead said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I agree that is demonstrates lack of education to assume things about any group.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 18, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.



Most of the people who receive food stamps have jobs - minimum wage jobs.  Others are military families, and retired people.  Of those who don't work, most are retired or disabled.  It's a Republican lie that people who receive food stamps are lazy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 18, 2015)

*"Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood"*

*Good!*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 18, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.
> ...



It's a fact that those who accept federal or state subsistence and are who are otherwise able bodied... are people of low moral character.  And this without exception.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jul 18, 2015)

Camp said:


> All unhealthy food should be off the list. Red meat is not a healthy source of protein.



There is literally no better form of portion than red meat.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 19, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



You display your ignorance every time you post.  People who are poor would have to be stupid to deny their family better food than their meager pay allows.  Republicans have worked very hard to ensure that the working poor have no choice but to accept their "wage subsidies" by voting against increases in the minimum wage. 

You now have a less than 10% chance of working yourself out of poverty.  Smart people do everything they can to help themselves and their families because their choices are now so limited.  Conservatives want people poor and hungry.  That's why they vote tax breaks to the wealthy, and nothing for poor working folk.


----------



## Boss (Jul 19, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



So we adopt the Democrat policies and establish a minimum wage and years down the road you blame the failure of the system on Republicans. Over and over again, Democrat programs designed to "help people" have produced dismal results, people remain in poverty after us spending $20 trillion to bail them out... and it's the Republicans fault! 

The minimum wage is arguably one of the worst things you've ever done for wealth disparity. It effectively baselines labor costs. It removes the freedom of the individual to negotiate his/her own wages and established an accepted "norm" for everyone. It doesn't matter that people feel like their time is worth more than $7.50 hr., that's the magic rate set by government. If the baseline wasn't there, no telling what individuals may have negotiated for themselves. The average wage minimum may be at $10 hr. by now... or more. 

And the REAL dirty little secret is, Big Business and Capitalism LOVES the minimum wage! It baselines their labor costs and releases them from any obligation to pay more. Not only that, but it pushes their focus to quality of the individual they can get for the least amount of money. So now you have people who should be worth a lot more, stuck at minimum wage because that's the rate we set. Now you'll push and push for a meager increase, but you'll get that when Capitalism is ready to set the baseline for labor cost again. Then you'll be locked in at that rate until you get another increase.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 19, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


I guess it doesn't help that since Obama got elected, food prices have doubled, energy prices are about 30% higher.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 19, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Prices are higher now than in 1980, your point being?


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 19, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


I'm talking since Obama got into office.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 19, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Prices do tend to go up, try population control and then you'll have price control...


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 19, 2015)

No steak with my EBT, just hamburger meat, which is ground steak,,,derps....


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 19, 2015)

If entitlement recipients are not spending their payments on steak and seafood, then this law will not affect them.

Whats the problem?


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 19, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> If entitlement recipients are not spending their payments on steak and seafood, then this law will not affect them.
> 
> Whats the problem?


If you don't breathe it does not affect the oxygen level...


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 19, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > If entitlement recipients are not spending their payments on steak and seafood, then this law will not affect them.
> ...


Interesting that your response has no bearing on what I said...


----------



## quorthon (Jul 20, 2015)




----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 23, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> steak and sea food is good for you
> 
> what they should ban is soda pop candy and pre done foods


 
Why? What's it to you whether people want to be healthy or not?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 23, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.
> ...


 
You clearly have not visited your local welfare office recently.


----------



## Claudette (Jul 23, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



If he did he's see just who his tax dollar is supporting. Its not a pretty picture.


----------



## Boss (Jul 23, 2015)

*It's a Republican lie that people who receive food stamps are lazy.*

It's a lie that it's a Republican lie. It is a bastardization of a Conservative view that welfare recipients in general are not motivated. That doesn't mean they are lazy. 

Some people ARE lazy, we should all be able to agree on that. The problem with social entitlement programs is, they don't work because they fail to motivate. We should also understand that lazy people who lack motivation aren't going to amount to much. So let's all forget about the lazy people and let's think about people who are not lazy but are also not motivated. They are resourceful enough to get by just fine with your handouts and they aren't inspired to do anything more. It's not that they are lazy, but why bother? If someone is going to come cut your grass tomorrow, why would you go out and cut it today? Just to prove you're not lazy? 

We can look at the poverty statistics from 1964 to now, and we see virtually no change. Now we could have literally given every poverty-level man, woman and child a check for $50k back in 1964, and we would have been financially better off than what we did. We've now spent over $20 trillion with a promise of $100 trillion more in the future, yet to be funded. We have a runaway bureaucracy that is literally overrun with corruption, abuse of resources, redundancy, pensions, etc. Blowing through *TRILLIONS* of dollars every year, chasing a pipe dream of ending all poverty and getting *NOWHERE!* 

"The Change" which needs to be made is fundamental. People have to be helped but they also have to be motivated to help themselves. Programs should be reformed and re-tailored with this in mind.  The most effective tool we have to defeat poverty is human ingenuity, imagination, inspiration... these are things that we need to promote and not discourage. People are more empowered by this than any handout you could ever give them.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> *It's a Republican lie that people who receive food stamps are lazy.*
> 
> It's a lie that it's a Republican lie. It is a bastardization of a Conservative view that welfare recipients in general are not motivated. That doesn't mean they are lazy.
> 
> ...


Welfare Hand-Out systems like ours are designed to foster laziness.  Tax systems like ours are designed to encourage laziness.  Work hard and you get punished.  Be lazy and you get tax discounts, welfare checks, discounted and forgiven loans, free phones, .... Work hard and you get Alternative minimum income tax, no tax discounts, just more and more pain.  Have money?  You get to pay for your health care and the health care of all the people who don't have to pay cause our government demands we pay for all the moochers.  Don't like it?  You are demonized for not being a team player.  Work hard and you are demonized for being too rich... yeah too rich is upper middle class for these piece of shit lazy ass holes.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 24, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > steak and sea food is good for you
> ...




it is my business i am paying for it


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 24, 2015)

Claudette said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


 
You pretty much have to respect most of those people on the basis that they're living organisms, because I'll be damned if they offer you a single other reason for doing so.


----------



## Zander (Jul 24, 2015)

They should be allowed to buy whatever they want, but they should be wickedly shamed and mocked at the checkout stand.

I suggest an announcement that "We have a social parasite on checkout aisle 1" Then every item they are purchasing announced on the PA  ....followed by flashing red lights and a loud klaxon style alarm. They should also have their photographs placed on a board at the store entrance for all to see.  Nobody should be proud of being on food stamps.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 24, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


 
I'm not arguing that taxpayers have the ability to make any micromanaging, meddling laws they like regarding spending.  I'm asking why the hell you care what other people eat or don't eat, beyond the simple fact of them getting food at all.  What's it to you?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 24, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




it is not meddling  if the tax payers are paying for it 

meddling is the whole premise behind obamacare 

either we are all in or all out


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 24, 2015)

Zander said:


> They should be allowed to buy whatever they want, but they should be wickedly shamed and mocked at the checkout stand.
> 
> I suggest an announcement that "We have a social parasite on checkout aisle 1" Then every item they are purchasing announced on the PA  ....followed by flashing red lights and a loud klaxon style alarm. They should also have their photographs placed on a board at the store entrance for all to see.  Nobody should be proud of being on food stamps.


I'll let you know when my Mom in law is getting food, she's 85 and won't hear them anywhey...since she lost he retirement to the crash in 2008...


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara (Jul 24, 2015)

Maybe if we gave free food and water to everybody... you know... basic fruits and vegetables, and some lean meats.  Maybe milk too, and things like eggs, beans, etc.  Free juice and water.  Healthy stuff.  Completely reorganize the system.  

Oh and go full Tesla and make electricity completely wireless and free.  Then just about everyone could survive and be happy on the bare minimum, and if they want a more extravagant life, they can work for it.​


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 24, 2015)

Goddess_Ashtara said:


> Maybe if we gave free food and water to everybody... you know... basic fruits and vegetables, and some lean meats.  Maybe milk too, and things like eggs, beans, etc.  Free juice and water.  Healthy stuff.  Completely reorganize the system.
> 
> Oh and go full Tesla and make electricity completely wireless and free.  Then just about everyone could survive and be happy on the bare minimum, and if they want a more extravagant life, they can work for it.​


How in the hell would the farmers have a steady income with that plan?


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara (Jul 24, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Goddess_Ashtara said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if we gave free food and water to everybody... you know... basic fruits and vegetables, and some lean meats.  Maybe milk too, and things like eggs, beans, etc.  Free juice and water.  Healthy stuff.  Completely reorganize the system.
> ...



I'm sure a great and mighty nation like America could figure it out.​


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 25, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


 
Look up the definition of "meddling".

And anytime you're ready to stop diverting off onto "I have the RIGHT to butt in!" - which no one is disputing - and address the question of why the hell you WANT to butt in, let me know.  I realize how hard it can be to sack up, so I won't hold my breath.

By the way, I love the argument of "We already interfere in people's lives, so we should just run EVERYTHING!"  What exquisite jackassery.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 25, 2015)

Goddess_Ashtara said:


> Maybe if we gave free food and water to everybody... you know... basic fruits and vegetables, and some lean meats.  Maybe milk too, and things like eggs, beans, etc.  Free juice and water.  Healthy stuff.  Completely reorganize the system.
> 
> Oh and go full Tesla and make electricity completely wireless and free.  Then just about everyone could survive and be happy on the bare minimum, and if they want a more extravagant life, they can work for it.​


 
Missed the point where it was anyone's job to provide "the bare minimum" for free to anyone else, or to have them "survive and be happy".  They can work for all of it, not just "more extravagant".

I cannot imagine why anyone would think that enabling an entire class of worthless, non-producing consumers who provide nothing of value whatsoever to themselves, let alone to anyone else, would be a good thing.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara (Jul 25, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Goddess_Ashtara said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if we gave free food and water to everybody... you know... basic fruits and vegetables, and some lean meats.  Maybe milk too, and things like eggs, beans, etc.  Free juice and water.  Healthy stuff.  Completely reorganize the system.
> ...




"Good"?  Acts of kindness and unconditional love, helping others, showing mercy, and being selfless are all very often subjectively perceived to be "good".  Many, many people, including "Christians", would even declare these things to be "objectively good".

But... I do not believe in objective morality.  I do not even believe in "good" or "evil".​


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 25, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Goddess_Ashtara said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe if we gave free food and water to everybody... you know... basic fruits and vegetables, and some lean meats.  Maybe milk too, and things like eggs, beans, etc.  Free juice and water.  Healthy stuff.  Completely reorganize the system.
> ...



How noble, decent and Christian of you. Even the ancient Romans had the good sense to realize that if the privileged few didn't provide food and distraction for the rabble, the rabble would turn on them and destroy them. 

As a result, every Roman was entitled to a measure of wheat from the city stores, and the Senators paid for performances and gladiator competitions at the Coliseum. Hence the phrase "bread and circuses". 

There are far more poor people than rich. People with nothing - no hope, no future, no stake in their communities, will turn on those who have oppressed them. 

It's simply in your best interest to provide for the needs of the poor.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 25, 2015)

Goddess_Ashtara said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Goddess_Ashtara said:
> ...



1)  How is it "kind" to turn people into useless, non-productive slugs?  I wouldn't be that "kind" to my children, for their own good, and I actually know and love them personally.  I have no interest in showing that sort of "love" to total strangers, and certainly not with money forcibly removed from other people.  You want to live out "Wall-E" or "Idiocracy" in real life?  Go adopt a homeless person and have him laze around on YOUR couch.

2)  There is nothing kind or loving about taxpayer-funded, government-mandated "charity".  Not now.  Not ever.  

3)  It's only selfless if you do it with YOUR money.  If you do it with mine, you're a douche nugget.

4)  "Subjective" is the only descriptive word you've used correctly in that whole post.

5)  I DO believe in good and evil, and nothing in more evil than the sort of "good" you're proposing.

6)  Don't even get me started on the disdain and condescension for your fellow man implicit in your blathering bullshit.  You try to be "kind" and "loving" to ME by saying, "Here, it's too hard for you to provide the basics for yourself, let me just do that for you", and I will slap the taste out of your mouth.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 25, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Goddess_Ashtara said:
> ...



Unless you are a) my pastor, and b) able to show me the passage of the Bible that says, "And thou shalt tax the productive to support the poor like helpless infants", you can fuck off with your snotty little (failed) attempt at making me feel guilty for not living up to your standards projected onto my religion.  As if.


----------



## BlueGin (Jul 25, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Goddess_Ashtara said:
> ...



Remind me again why the SNAP recipients are too good to eat hamburger and must be pampered with high cost food that even the middle class can't afford every week?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 25, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Remind me again why I have to pay to feed other people's families when I'm clipping coupons and poring over sale papers to feed my own.


----------



## BlueGin (Jul 25, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Exactly. Granted if I find good sales on canned food ( tuna, ham, chicken) or flats of bottled water, sports drinks or cereal that I know they don't get everyday I will pick it up and donate some to the food bank. But... Ungrateful moochers whining about not getting prime cuts of steak everyday or organic canned goods can kiss my butt.


----------



## Boss (Jul 25, 2015)

Again... just to put this out on the table again.... 

Our nation produces a shit-ton of agricultural surplus every year. It's absolutely impossible for a farmer to know precisely how much corn or wheat he will be able to sell when it's ready to sell. Since it's far worse to run out and not have anything to sell, they often over-produce... this creates a surplus. The surplus is totally useless if it's not used. 

We could establish a food distribution service using surplus agriculture and feed millions. It would not be a "burden" to the taxpayer because the surplus already exists and is of no use unless it gets used. Yes, there would be a cost to administering the program but that cost would be considerably less and the program would be considerably more efficient. 

The hardest part would be implementing the program and transitioning away from food stamps or EBT cards. People have gotten used to they system they have.. they are used to being able to buy the premium ice cream and their Hot Pockets... They'd have to get used to more raw veggies and food that requires preparation, but they wouldn't starve.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 25, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



If you think that SNAP recipients are dining on steak and lobster on the money they're getting, you are delusional. 

They're also banned from getting massages and manicures and going on cruises. 

This is yet another example of Republicans passing useless laws designed to punish poor people for being poor. Like the drug testing laws for welfare recipients. Thousands and thousands tested, very few positives. What a waste of time and money!


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 25, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


hamburger is ground steak..Why do people not understand that?


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 25, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Yet the legislature members do not have to take a drug test for their jobs...they claim it is against their right to privacy..


----------



## Correll (Jul 25, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...



It is interesting that you seem to make little if any distinction between a job and being on food stamps...


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 25, 2015)

Correll said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Considering that many in the legislature are business owners and rug test their workers I find it most hypocritical.. If you pass a law making everyone get drug test but top level govt employees I see a breach of ethics...


----------



## Correll (Jul 25, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Many in the legislature are "business owners"? And drug test their workers?

You're just guessing.


----------



## BlueGin (Jul 25, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



I have no problem with SNAP recipients buying crab, small lobster tails and certain cuts of steak. All of those things can be purchased for a reasonable price. King crab...and expensive cuts of beef are a different story.

And no I'm not delusional.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 25, 2015)

Correll said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Sure buddy, and they are also drug testing kids in schools, sorry if you think that govt. officials should be above the rest instead of setting an example of submission as most people have to to survive..


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 25, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...


Why not?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 26, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



*Look up the definition of "meddling"*

maybe you are the one who needs to look up meddling 

if you did you would find 

*interfere in or busy oneself unduly with something that is not one's concern.*

meddling refers to messing around with business that is not  of your concern

being a tax payer it is indeed a concern on how the money is spent


----------



## Interpol (Jul 26, 2015)

If Missouri Republicans really care about saving money,_ they_ ought to stop buying steak & seafood.


----------



## Correll (Jul 26, 2015)

Interpol said:


> If Missouri Republicans really care about saving money,_ they_ ought to stop buying steak & seafood.




How do you know they haven't?

Lord Knows I don't buy much of it.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 26, 2015)

There is so much about these laws being passed that is wrong, I hardly know where to start.

Firstly, for a party that purportedly believes in "small government", this is expanding the reach of government, increasing the size of government to monitor what poor people are buying.

Secondly, for a party which purportedly believes in the Constitution, this is a gross invasion of privacy.  We're talking about the senior citizens, working poor, and military families who make up the vast majority of SNAP recipients.

Last, but not least, there is the assumption that SNAP recipients are not capable of making prudent financial decisions.  Again, I point out that most SNAP recipients are working poor, retired people and military families.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 26, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> There is so much about these laws being passed that is wrong, I hardly know where to start.
> 
> Firstly, for a party that purportedly believes in "small government", this is expanding the reach of government, increasing the size of government to monitor what poor people are buying.
> 
> ...



*Firstly*..... you don't understand what 'smaller government' means, if that's what you think.   Smaller government, means less money stolen from working people, to give to non-working people.

You made government bigger, by taking our money in the first place, and handing it out to people who haven't earned it.

We're reducing it, by cutting these people off, and limiting what they do with OUR tax money.  Not theirs.   If they want control of the money, tell them to get off their butts, and work for a living.

*Second*, if we were following the constitution darling, there would be no SNAP at all.   There is not one single enumerated power in the constitution, which grants the Federal government the ability to tax one group of people, to provide free food for another.

SNAP itself, is entirely unconstitutional.    Moreover, if you had read the constitution, you would know that all other rights, are reserved for the states.... meaning, the states are allowed to make laws the limit what people do with tax payer money, and there is absolutely no contradiction in that.

*Lastly*, if they are living off of tax payer money, then clearly they are not making prudent financial decisions, whether they are capable or not.

But regardless, I don't give a crap if they are able or not.  If you want my tax money, then I gain the right to impose my views on your life.

You don't like that?  Tough snot.  Get off your butt, and earn your own money, and you can do whatever the flip you want with it.

You live off the money that I got up at 3 AM, drove 30 minutes into work, and worked 12 hours to earn????? Then SHUT UP AND DO WHAT I SAY IF YOU WANT MY MONEY SCUM BAG........   Tough snot.   That's how it works.  You live off the money of others, you grant them right to dictate your life.    Earn your own paycheck if you don't like it.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 27, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > There is so much about these laws being passed that is wrong, I hardly know where to start.
> ...


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 27, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > There is so much about these laws being passed that is wrong, I hardly know where to start.
> ...


I don't think Dragon Lady takes any of you money...


----------



## Boss (Jul 27, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> I don't think Dragon Lady takes any of you money...



She hasn't won the Democratic nomination yet... oh wait?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 27, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...


 
There's a big difference between "have to" and "choose to".  I have no problem with voluntarily helping people, but I balk at being told I'm obligated to, or owe it to anyone.

This being said, I see no profit in actually _encouraging_ the nanny mentality by trying to micromanage each item people eat.  A better idea, to my mind, is to back off of funding people's lives in the first place, and let them stand up and take responsibility for themselves.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jul 27, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...


 
There's a big difference between "have to" and "choose to".  I have no problem with voluntarily helping people, but I balk at being told I'm obligated to, or owe it to anyone.

This being said, I see no profit in actually _encouraging_ the nanny mentality by trying to micromanage each item people eat.  A better idea, to my mind, is to back off of funding people's lives in the first place, and let them stand up and take responsibility for themselves.


----------



## BlueGin (Jul 27, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I agree. And I feel they get too much SNAP money as it is... Which is why they waltz into a store and don't think twice about buying king crab and steak.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 27, 2015)

Interpol said:


> If Missouri Republicans really care about saving money,_ they_ ought to stop buying steak & seafood.



That wouldn't save any money.  Unless you are suggesting that employees of government should be paid less.... which I would agree.    Wisconsin tried to cut benefits to government employees, and you people on the left had a total 2-year-old hissy fit melt down.

Practice what you leftists preach, hypocrite.

I would love it if public service was 100% community service.     But in order for someone to take on the job in high public office, and not starve to death, they would have to be in big business.   But of course you leftists hate and attack anyone that has a background in business, and actually prefer people who have never worked an honest job, and have lived their entire life on the life blood of working Americans (Obama anyone?).

Practice what you leftists preach, hypocrite.  You find someone willing to work in high office, without being in business, and without living off the tax payers.....  Good luck.

In the mean time, welfare is money stolen from my check, so I demand politicians lock down people on welfare as much as they possibly can.      Regulate every single aspect of welfare recipients lives.   Don't like it?   Simple solution.  Earn your own money.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 27, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Since you had nothing of value to add to the conversation.... I'll sum up my response with "Right back at you".   Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, and shouldn't be voting in the polls on this forum, let alone who is in government.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 27, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


 
Dragonlady is just a hysterical, fanatical, abortion-for-everybody, entitlements for all, black people should never work and all white men are bad, whore.

Just so you know.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 27, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Sure she does.

Poor people do not drive to my home, and demand I give them money.

It's self-righteous, arrogant hypocrites like Dragon Lady, that demand... not that THEY give THEIR money to poor people.... no no.... that OTHER people have their money confiscated, to be given to poor people.

The leftists that push welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, Obamacare, and Medicaid, and on and on and on......   those leftists never give their money.

You never hear a leftist say "I demand people in my income bracket pay more tax, to feed the poor".   They never say that.

What do they say?   They say "the 1%!!!!" and "the wealthy!"   "Eat the rich!"   Right?

But regardless of what they say, people like me, end up paying the bill.   The working people, is who ends up footing the bill that these arrogant hypocrite leftists demand others pay.

So yes, it is people like Dragon Hypocrite that steal my money.  Whether she is also receiving my money, or just giving my money to others, I don't know, and don't care.  She's guilty either way.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 27, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Yes, I know. You can tell just from her verbiage, that she has the impartial balanced intellect of an appointed judge of a Stalinist show trial.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 27, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


 
Don't worry, I'm sure she takes more than she's ever even thought of putting back. Or earning, for that matter.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 27, 2015)

I'm a Canadian who started working when I was 11 years old - first with two paper routes. I made $3. per week. When I was 14, I suckered tobacco - hot, filthy work that paid me $20. an acre. I could do an acre a day.   Much more than the 75 cents per hour that I could make in waitressing in a local coffee shop. 

I work all through school - waitressing, life guard in the summer, drying cleaning plant on weekends, ironing in a laundry - anything I could get. 

When I graduated, I went into banking and became one of the first female bank managers in Canada. I attended a lot of meetings where I was the only woman in the room.   I left banking and went into law, eventually becoming a senior law clerk working at Bay Street law firms. Law clerks handle their own files, have their own offices and secretaries, but they're not lawyers. The files are less complex than the files the lawyers work on - more straight forward. We also assist on the mega deals.  

Two years ago we left Toronto and moved to the Niagara Peninsula living on 2 acres near Lake Erie. I'm currently working for lawyer in village about a 15 minute drive from home doing real estate. The hours are long. The pay isn't as good as Bay Street and the biggest deal I've worked on is only $4 million but it's never boring. 

Sorry to disappoint you that I'm not sitting on my ass sucking the government teat like Koshergirl.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 27, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> I'm a Canadian who started working when I was 11 years old - first with two paper routes. I made $3. per week. When I was 14, I suckered tobacco - hot, filthy work that paid me $20. an acre. I could do an acre a day.   Much more than the 75 cents per hour that I could make in waitressing in a local coffee shop.
> 
> I work all through school - waitressing, life guard in the summer, drying cleaning plant on weekends, ironing in a laundry - anything I could get.
> 
> ...


 Ya huh. lolol...


----------



## TimothysAlaska (Jul 27, 2015)

Hmm how about the government gets out of the food business!  And let the churches give out food stamps, they are tax free institutions anyway who claim to help the poor.  or maybe not, the churches need the money to push politics and build additions and of course pay the preacher 6 figure salary.  Lol.  And besides all the church would say is pray for it,  and pass the donation jar for more bonuses.  perhaps if the churches actually applied what they preach they could help people out?  

It would be a good way for the gov to save money, and if churches refuse to do what they say we should do then yank the tax free status.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 27, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> I'm a Canadian who started working when I was 11 years old - first with two paper routes. I made $3. per week. When I was 14, I suckered tobacco - hot, filthy work that paid me $20. an acre. I could do an acre a day.   Much more than the 75 cents per hour that I could make in waitressing in a local coffee shop.
> 
> I work all through school - waitressing, life guard in the summer, drying cleaning plant on weekends, ironing in a laundry - anything I could get.
> 
> ...



So explain to me why you support policies that punish people who are currently working as hard as you claim to have?

This year, I'm likely to make the most money I ever have in my life.... at about.... $23,000 a year.

See this is why people on the right like myself, read what you say, and think you are lying.    Because most people who have worked their butt off, don't support policies that punish people who work their butt off.

Everything that you left-wingers have done over the past decade, have made my life harder, not easier.

Now I expect that from people who have never worked an honest days work in their whole lives.  They are clueless, and arrogant.   I expect those left-wingers to make my life worse, because they think they know better than me, what needs to be done with my money.

Usually people who have really worked hard in life, wiser, and less arrogant.

You claim to have worked hard, and yet want to harm those who were in the position you previously were?   You are either a psychopath, or lying.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 27, 2015)

TimothysAlaska said:


> Hmm how about the government gets out of the food business!  And let the churches give out food stamps, they are tax free institutions anyway who claim to help the poor.  or maybe not, the churches need the money to push politics and build additions and of course pay the preacher 6 figure salary.  Lol.  And besides all the church would say is pray for it,  and pass the donation jar for more bonuses.  perhaps if the churches actually applied what they preach they could help people out?
> 
> It would be a good way for the gov to save money, and if churches refuse to do what they say we should do then yank the tax free status.



I worked for the homeless shelter, and did clothing and food donations.

You can't 'force' churches to do what you want.  Sorry, our religious freedom, is not dependent on doing what you think we should.

Moreover, I don't see any reason why a preacher should not earn a 6-figure salary.   Can I come to where you work, and tell you that you shouldn't be paid as much as you are?

Besides that, all organizations should be tax free.   This economy would be roaring right now, if we had no taxes on those that produce wealth, and produce jobs.

You people jack up taxes on the evil corporations, and then whine about not enough jobs.   As if there isn't any connection between the two.


----------



## Boss (Jul 27, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> I'm a Canadian who started working when I was 11 years old - first with two paper routes. I made $3. per week. When I was 14, I suckered tobacco - hot, filthy work that paid me $20. an acre. I could do an acre a day.   Much more than the 75 cents per hour that I could make in waitressing in a local coffee shop.
> 
> I work all through school - waitressing, life guard in the summer, drying cleaning plant on weekends, ironing in a laundry - anything I could get.
> 
> ...



And how much of a role did social entitlement programs or affirmative action play in what you accomplished?  How much of that do you think you couldn't have done without the help of the government?


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 27, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a Canadian who started working when I was 11 years old - first with two paper routes. I made $3. per week. When I was 14, I suckered tobacco - hot, filthy work that paid me $20. an acre. I could do an acre a day.   Much more than the 75 cents per hour that I could make in waitressing in a local coffee shop.
> ...



I live in a left wing country with cradle to the grave social programs which have helped me all my life.  The harder I work, the better my life and that of my family. 

You live in a right wing country where the deck is stacked against you but your anger is misdirected. You're getting screwed by corporate America who refuses to pay living wages to hardworking people. 

It should be directed at the mega corporations and business executives who are scooping all of the gravy and leaving you the crumbs. 

The Republicans have a vested interest in keeping you pissed off at the poor people who taxpayers are subsidizing. As long as you're focused on those worse off than you, you will continue to vote against your own best interests and vote Republican. 

I pay nothing for doctor's visits or hospital stays. I pay $2 for a prescription.   Every family receives $2000 per year for every child under 6 and a lower amount for children 6 to 18. 

There is subsidized child care for low income families. Geared to income housing for low income families and seniors. These assists are cheaper than welfare and help low income families get back in their feet. 

Our school system funds all schools equally - rich neighbourhood or poor and our education system is ranked one of the best in the world. Our teachers are well paid. 

In Toronto, we had recreation centres in every neighbourhood, rich or poor, with free programs in poor neighbourhoods and cheap programs $10 or less, in rich ones. They have gyms, indoor pools, and programs for all ages. 

Every small town has a hockey rink and a soccer pitch - even out here in our Township, and we have a free library with books, movies and video games. 

Canadians believe in helping out their fellow Canadians. It's in our Constitution. We spend our money on infrastructure and our people. We're not a strongly religious nation so we don't rely on our churches to help the poor. 

One our leading writers, Pierre Burton, wrote a book in the 1960's which has informed my life. It's called The Smug Majority. In it he says that capitalism is very hard on the poor, and on those who aren't smart enough or strong enough to compete and succeed. As such, we who are smart enough and strong enough, have an obligation to help out these people.  It's the cost of succeeding in a capitalist economy. 

I'm not rich, but I make a decent living, and when I retire which will be within 5 years, I'll have a modest pension, most of which will come from my government, though CPP, and senior income supplements. 

Americans used to care about fellow Anericans - before Reagan, and the worship of Ayn Rand. 

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. That was a call from Kennedy to contribute to the well being of others, and not ask that your country make you rich. Conservatives have tried to twist it around to make it about not asking for free stuff. There wasn't much in the way of free stuff when Kennedy said this. But there was an expectation that you could get rich easily. Today it's not so easy.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a Canadian who started working when I was 11 years old - first with two paper routes. I made $3. per week. When I was 14, I suckered tobacco - hot, filthy work that paid me $20. an acre. I could do an acre a day.   Much more than the 75 cents per hour that I could make in waitressing in a local coffee shop.
> ...



My mother raised me on a government widow's pension after my father died. My schooling was paid for by the government. 

I've had 9 surgeries, major and minor, three children and a minor heart attack, all paid for by government health care. I received maternity leave benefits which made it easier for me to take time off with my babies. 

I rode government funded transit to work every day for 30 years in Toronto. My youngest daughter went to a government funded after school program. We used the city recreation centres regularly and the city library.  Out in the country we use the local rec centre, and the library. 

What I accomplished professionally, I did by using my smarts and my ambition, as well as my (government) education, but my life has been helped and enhanced throughout by using government funded services and health care.   

If I had had to pay for my medical care, I would have been bankrupted, more than once. So overall, it's been a huge benefit to me.


----------



## BlueGin (Jul 27, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



And what is a Canadians vested interest in meddling in American politics exactly?


----------



## Boss (Jul 27, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> What I accomplished professionally, I did by using my smarts and my ambition...



That was what I was getting to. You were motivated by your ambitions and driven to succeed and you did. And there have been people worse off than you who never had government help and they also were motivated by their ambitions and driven to succeed. 

The government programs helped, but you would have succeeded without them. Now, you seem to be an intelligent person, don't you feel like something is missing in these programs designed to 'help' people? It's clear that they aren't really working to solve the problems as they are. Isn't what's missing in resolving the poverty problem more about stimulating (or enabling) drive and ambition to succeed? 

I am a person who honestly wants what is best for my fellow man. I have no problem with a portion of my earnings to go toward actually helping others but I look at the state of things and I am very disappointed in the results I am seeing, that I have paid for.... and my grandkids will be paying for.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 28, 2015)

Bearing in mind, I live in Canada, but here I see the opposite.  In Canada, we know that if we work hard, we can get ahead. Our middle class is growing, not shrinking. That's no longer true in the US. 

And getting a quality education in the U.S. Is tough unless you grow up in a well to do neighbourhood. 

American treat their poor like the red headed step child. The Republican Party uses the poor to deflect attention from the fact that the ones getting the big time handouts are the wealthy and the big corporations. 

Earned income credits, food stamps and social security subsidize low wages and lack of pensions in the private sector. 

Republicans rail against high corporate taxes but the only companies which pay 35% are the small ones. Big corporations pay an effective rate of 10%. 

In my opinion, the SNAP program is a bad idea, but not for reasons you might think. First off, corporations should be required to pay a living wage. If you need the government to subsidize your workers, you shouldn't be in business. 

Secondly, instead of making SNAP a separate program with those administration costs of qualifying people and sending the money to the states etc., just increase you welfare/disability/social security/military pay to cover the additional amount. 

Last but not least, recipients are restricted in what foods they can buy. Not fresh wholesome stuff, but prepared packaged crap. So the biggest beneficiaries of the SNAP program are corporations.


----------



## Boss (Jul 28, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Bearing in mind, I live in Canada, but here I see the opposite. In Canada, we know that if we work hard, we can get ahead. Our middle class is growing, not shrinking. That's no longer true in the US.



It's because our middle class is becoming more wealthy. 



Dragonlady said:


> And getting a quality education in the U.S. Is tough unless you grow up in a well to do neighbourhood.



But we're spending more per child than almost anyone. 



Dragonlady said:


> American treat their poor like the red headed step child.



Actually, our poor are the most obese poor on the planet. The average person below poverty level in America lives in a house with a television, air conditioner and telephone. 

The problem is, our poor are treated TOO well. 



Dragonlady said:


> The Republican Party uses the poor to deflect attention from the fact that the ones getting the big time handouts are the wealthy and the big corporations.



So you won't be voting for Hillary Clinton since she has set records for donations from the wealthy and big corporations? 



Dragonlady said:


> Republicans rail against high corporate taxes but the only companies which pay 35% are the small ones. Big corporations pay an effective rate of 10%.



None of them should be paying ANYTHING as far as I'm concerned. If their owner and CEO report incomes, they should pay income tax but the corporation itself shouldn't be taxed. Reason being, the first rule of commerce... *business doesn't pay tax.* All tax liability is factored in to price, pay scales, benefits, productivity objectives or even actual jobs themselves. 



Dragonlady said:


> First off, corporations should be required to pay a living wage.



No, people should have to earn what the market will bear. There should be no restrictions set on that amount and it should be between the parties involved to negotiate a fair wage for the work expected. 



Dragonlady said:


> Secondly, instead of making SNAP a separate program with those administration costs of qualifying people and sending the money to the states etc., just increase you welfare/disability/social security/military pay to cover the additional amount.



The administration of SNAP is not the problem with it.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 28, 2015)

Reason being, the first rule of commerce... *business doesn't pay tax.*
*
When has this ever been the case in the USA?*


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 28, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Hey dumb ass... all the free shit you got... yeah someone else had to pay for it.   All government does is take from your neighbor to give to you.  It aint free dumb ass.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Bearing in mind, I live in Canada, but here I see the opposite. In Canada, we know that if we work hard, we can get ahead. Our middle class is growing, not shrinking. That's no longer true in the US.
> ...



Your middle class isn't getting more wealthy.  They're losing ground. Only the wealthy are getting wealthier. 

Those unionized manufacturing jobs that all went to Mexico and Asia, were middle class jobs.  The people who used to have them, aren't middle class any more.  They're barely over the poverty line. 

You say that people should be paid what the market will bear.  That's not working out too well for the workers. Wages, as a percentage of business expenses, are at their lowest levels since the 1920's. Profits are at their highest levels in history.  From these numbers it is apparent that businesses could afford substantial increases in wages but because of high unemployment the market says they don't have to. 

I won't be voting for any U.S. Candidate. I'm a Canadian living in Canada where we have an $11/hour minimum wage, government funded health care and the fastest growing middle class in the world.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 28, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Man it must suck to have to live off taxes taken from your neighbors.  Sorry you don't have a family that can take care of itself.  Maybe if you folks focused on families instead of marrying your government sugar daddy you would not have such a screwed up life in a socialist country.


----------



## Boss (Jul 28, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Reason being, the first rule of commerce... *business doesn't pay tax.
> 
> When has this ever been the case in the USA?*



It's always the case in any free market capitalist business.

Oh wait... I forgot I was talking to a complete retard.... sorry this went over your stupid little head.... Yes, the company writes a check to the IRS and pays it's tax bill.... it does not pay the tax. Ultimately, the consumer or employee pays it. 

The tax liabilities for ANY business are offset by increase in price, cutting of hours, laying off people, downsizing, streamlining, raising production demands, cutting benefits, leasing cheaper facilities, on and on... the liability does not come out of the CEO's pocket or the corporate bank account.


----------



## Boss (Jul 28, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Your middle class isn't getting more wealthy. They're losing ground. Only the wealthy are getting wealthier.






 
Here you can see what is happening to the so-called "middle class."


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Reason being, the first rule of commerce... *business doesn't pay tax.
> ...


Yet the company is presented the bill and pays it under their name, not the consumers...After WWII the US had a 90% tax rate, yet business flourished...and this rate went in to the 1960's yet US business flourished...


----------



## Boss (Jul 28, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> You say that people should be paid what the market will bear. That's not working out too well for the workers.



Well then the "workers" need to be something else. You see, this argument ONLY works in a closed Socialist system where "workers" are a class and you have no freedom to be anything else. In America, you can choose to not be a worker, you can own the business and be the CEO.


----------



## Boss (Jul 28, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Again, they do write the check to the IRS... they don't pay the taxes. 

And the personal top marginal income tax rate was 90%... not corporate taxes.


----------



## Boss (Jul 28, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Those unionized manufacturing jobs that all went to Mexico and Asia, were middle class jobs. The people who used to have them, aren't middle class any more. They're barely over the poverty line.



And you should ask yourself why those jobs left. The unions simply priced labor out of the market and the capitalist found another alternative. This should prove that stomping your foot and demanding business pay labor what they want regardless of the value to the business, is NOT a winning proposition.


----------



## BlueGin (Jul 28, 2015)

TimothysAlaska said:


> Hmm how about the government gets out of the food business!  And let the churches give out food stamps, they are tax free institutions anyway who claim to help the poor.  or maybe not, the churches need the money to push politics and build additions and of course pay the preacher 6 figure salary.  Lol.  And besides all the church would say is pray for it,  and pass the donation jar for more bonuses.  perhaps if the churches actually applied what they preach they could help people out?
> 
> It would be a good way for the gov to save money, and if churches refuse to do what they say we should do then yank the tax free status.



I just dropped off 8 cans of tuna and 4 cartons of Almond milk to our churches soup kitchen this week.  I think everyone should donate what they can.

Most food banks can even accept monetary donations online now which make it easy.


----------



## KissMy (Jul 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> The tax liabilities for ANY business are offset by increase in price, cutting of hours, laying off people, downsizing, streamlining, raising production demands, cutting benefits, leasing cheaper facilities, on and on... the liability does not come out of the CEO's pocket or the corporate bank account.



^^^ Total Lie ^^^ The CEO's pocket & the corporate bank account will be impacted by increased corporate tax liabilities


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Those unionized manufacturing jobs that all went to Mexico and Asia, were middle class jobs. The people who used to have them, aren't middle class any more. They're barely over the poverty line.
> ...



The unions didn't price themselves out of the market. Bush's Republicans gave tax breaks to corporations moving manufacturing offshore making such moves very profitable for corporations. 

Corporations have taken advantage of these tax breaks to increase their profits and the resultant glut of available workers in order to drive down wages for their remaining jobs. 

Reagan's gutting of anti-trust legislation in the 80's has lead to corporations becoming larger and larger. It's impractical for smaller manufacturers to offshore their manufacturing but easy for larger companies to do so. 

It wasn't union greed that lead to off-shore manufacturing, but corporate greed coupled with Republican policies.


----------



## Boss (Jul 28, 2015)

KissMy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The tax liabilities for ANY business are offset by increase in price, cutting of hours, laying off people, downsizing, streamlining, raising production demands, cutting benefits, leasing cheaper facilities, on and on... the liability does not come out of the CEO's pocket or the corporate bank account.
> ...



Can't... not possible.

The corporate bank account is ultimately there as a result of the consumer. Every single penny of money in that account now, in the past, in the future, will be the result of consumer's dollars. Therefore, any liability or expense will be paid for with dollars from a consumer. 

You can do some imaginary pretending that we somehow stick it to the big wigs when we increase their corporate taxes but the consumer is who pays them. But not JUST the consumer... let's be clear. Sometimes the consumer can't be demanded to pay the increase because of competitive capitalism and markets... and that means the extra expense has to come from other means, like jobs. Someone loses a job and some other people may get a few more hours or have to become more productive.


----------



## Boss (Jul 28, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> The unions didn't price themselves out of the market.



That's exactly what happened to the manufacturing sector. THAT along with NAFTA and GATT screwed the pooch. I believe that was Clinton and Bush Sr.

In any event... why pay someone in Cleveland to build washing machines for $28 hr. when you can have them built in Mexico for $3 an hour? Make any sense to you? Oh... and you don't have to give the Mexican 12 weeks of paid leave, pensions, bonuses, perks out the ass... all of that is included with the $3.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 28, 2015)

If American unions are the reason corporations moved their manufacturing overseas, why didn't it happen in other countries?  Why didn't German countries move manufacturing to China?

Canada lost some manufacturing. American owned companies aren't manufacturing in Canada anymore but Canadian companies stayed here. 

U.S. manufacturing was hollowed out because Bush gave tax breaks. Sure the Republicans party deflected the blame into unions. They don't want to be seen as the reason you lost your job. Besides, everybody hates unions so they're more than ready to believe it. 

European countries retained their manufacturing and they're unionized, paying higher wages and higher taxes than the U.S.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 28, 2015)

If these zombies want steak, Im all for it............but the progressives can foot the bill thanks!!!


Fuck these people who want lobster on the people's dime.They get caught doing that,  no more government assistance!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 28, 2015)

Here ya go...........they want steaks, they can get a few of these >>>

 1 Steaks at Dollar Tree - Mojosavings.com


----------



## Boss (Jul 28, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> If American unions are the reason corporations moved their manufacturing overseas, why didn't it happen in other countries?  Why didn't German countries move manufacturing to China?
> 
> Canada lost some manufacturing. American owned companies aren't manufacturing in Canada anymore but Canadian companies stayed here.
> 
> ...



Why is it you SOCIALISTS want to always "look at other countries?" 

We're NOT them! They are NOT us!  Understand? We're two different people, two different cultures, different types of government, different democracy, different economies, different policies, different trade agreements, different constitutional rights, different legal rights under the law... on and on and on! 

Bush's goddamn tax breaks didn't cause  80% of our manufacturing sector to go elsewhere since 1970. Most of them were gone before a Bush ever sat his ass in the Oval Office.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 28, 2015)

Right wingers are very quick to look at other countries when making a point about the failure of some proposal you don't like. 

The cold reality is that the Republican Party sold out American workers and the American middle class to corporate interests.  

Then they lied to you and told you the unions made it happen. The poor are living off your hard work.  And you believe them.


----------



## Boss (Jul 28, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Right wingers are very quick to look at other countries when making a point about the failure of some proposal you don't like.
> 
> The cold reality is that the Republican Party sold out American workers and the American middle class to corporate interests.
> 
> Then they lied to you and told you the unions made it happen. The poor are living off your hard work.  And you believe them.



Rhetoric. Politicians like Hillary and Bill have sold out to corporations... I'll add the Bushes as well. Crony corpratism (which is not capitalism) is a big problem. That's not why the jobs left the US.  

Again, it was the combo-effect of ever-increasing demands from organized labor AND the implementation of NAFTA and GATT. When NAFTA was being bandied about, myself and many other business-minded conservatives said it was a BAD BAD idea because we couldn't compete with the cost of labor in these countries. 

And I don't think poor people are living off my work... I think my work is being taxed to excess and the money is being wasted on nonsense. And I am tired of it.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 28, 2015)

Well certainly you don't want to pass any blame on to the unions for outrageous pension and medical plans.

No need to blame the worker for their insatiable greed for benefits and wages.

Don't even consider how the arrogant American liberal worker spurred on by the unions worked themselves right out of a world market ................


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Jul 28, 2015)

By the way you didn't want to mention that fucking liberal mayor in NYC that wants to ban the buying of sugary drinks with SNAP ............

*Missouri Food Stamps Good For Steak And Lobster For The Foreseeable Future*
Posted:  04/08/2015 4:06 pm EDT  Updated:  04/08/2015 4:59 pm EDT










Missouri state Rep. Rick Brattin (R) introduced HB 813 in February with zero co-sponsors. The bill has not been referred to a committee, no hearing has been scheduled and there are no plans to take it up before the Missouri House of Representatives adjourns for the year in May.

And yet HB 813 is one of the most notorious pieces of legislation in America right now.

The Washington Post reported on the bill last week, prompting follow-ups from Missouri TV stations, CNN and a plethora of blogs this week. (The Huffington Post noted the bill in March after seeing it on a local blog.) Post columnist Dana Milbank blasted Brattin in a Tuesday column.

"This is less about public policy than about demeaning public-benefit recipients," Milbank wrote.

Brattin's one-page bill would prohibit Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients from using their benefits to buy "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood, or steak."

"I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards," Brattin told The Washington Post, referring to the electronic benefit transfer cards used to distribute SNAP benefits, which can pay for any food item as long as it isn't a hot prepared meal or an alcoholic beverage. Brattin did not respond to interview requests from HuffPost.

There's at least one big obstacle to Brattin's bill, aside from its apparent lack of support in the Missouri legislature. Try as they might, states aren't allowed by federal law to make up new restrictions on who can get SNAP benefits or what they can buy. If Missouri tried to implement Brattin's legislation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture would probably threaten to take away the administrative funding the state uses to run the program. That's what happened last year in Georgia, where lawmakers almost incorporated a drug test into the state's SNAP requirements before Gov. Nathan Deal (R) backed down.

Jeanette Mott Oxford, director of Empower Missouri, an anti-poverty advocacy group, said she was surprised by the amount of attention Brattin's bill has received.

"Maybe it's because there's been so much attention to that surfer dude and other things like that on the Web," Oxford said, referring to Jason Greenslate, a lobster-loving food stamp recipient from San Diego whom Fox News profiled in 2013. The liberal news watchdog Media Matters also traces the current kerfuffle to the Food Stamp Surfer.

Brattin's measure has also been compared to recent Kansas legislation that would ban welfare recipients from spending cash assistance at tattoo parlors and on cruise ships. The Kansas bill has passed through the state legislature and is awaiting a signature from Gov. Sam Brownback (R).

Oxford said Brattin's bill may not have gotten much traction in the legislature because lawmakers have been busy with other welfare legislation. The Missouri House and Senate have both approved a bill that will reinstate a three-month time limit on SNAP benefits for unemployed able-bodied adults without dependents. That bill will also put in place shorter time limits for benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

Lamenting what poor people buy with food stamps, whether it's fancy food or junk, is a political tradition that dates back at least to former President Ronald Reagan, who said he'd heard sad stories of "strapping young bucks" using stamps for T-bone steaks.
Missouri Food Stamps Good For Steak And Lobster For The Foreseeable Future


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Your middle class isn't getting more wealthy. They're losing ground. Only the wealthy are getting wealthier.
> ...



Tell me if I'm wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time.......

Is that chart showing the a larger group of Americans are moving UP from the middle class to the upper class?    Because the lower class percentage remained the same.

That's the first time I've seen the data laid out like that.   Why isn't this on every major news network?   Oh wait... never mind.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 30, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Right wingers are very quick to look at other countries when making a point about the failure of some proposal you don't like.
> 
> The cold reality is that the Republican Party sold out American workers and the American middle class to corporate interests.
> 
> Then they lied to you and told you the unions made it happen. The poor are living off your hard work.  And you believe them.



No, the Unions screwed over the Union workers.

Which car companies that operate here in the US, declared bankruptcy and laid off thousands of workers.....    Non-Union Toyota and Honda?   Or Unionized GM and Chrysler?

Which bakery company declared bankruptcy and closed.... non-Union Little Debbie or Unionized Hostess?

And by the way.....   You can't say that Hostess was unprofitable.... because they were bought out, and reopened as a non-Union shop, and are profitable to this day.

Republicans didn't do jack.   Nor was it there job to stop Unions from ruining themselves.    The Unions screwed themselves over, and that's their problem.

Years ago a Unionized steel mill closed in Youngstown Ohio.   A private investment firm, bought the old site, and reopened it.....  non-Union.

What a shock.

See this is what you left-wingers do all the time.  You do all your leftist policies and stuff... then it doesn't work, and you never say

"oh hey, our bad policies and unions, and regulations didn't work.... maybe we should come up with an alternative"

No no, just like Stalin blaming the bourgeoisie, and Cuba blaming the US, and North Korea blaming South Korea, and Venezuela blaming Columbia....  you find someone to blame.

No the Unions didn't completely destroy their own jobs.... it was the evil republicans blaw blaw blaw blaw.

Like a 5-year-old.   "He hit me back first".






Time to grow up.  Time to take responsibility for your failures.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 30, 2015)

Hostess was not all unionized, just the drivers.....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 30, 2015)

If people want to be stupid with their food stamps...Well, they'll be hungry for a couple of extra days every month.

Who are you cock sucking republicans to tell someone what to spend our safety net on??? You want people to live on the street like a ****** and starve.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 30, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Hostess was not all unionized, just the drivers.....



Former Twinkie Workers Bitter About Wage Cuts at Hostess - WSJ

Hostess moved to liquidate in November shortly after the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco and Grain Millers International Union went on strike in response to a new contract imposed on them at a bankruptcy court's direction.​So the "Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco and Grain Millers International Union" was only the drivers?   Odd name for a drivers union.

Actually, i was lucky enough to meet one of the bakers from the Hostess plant.    We talked about the entire thing.  It was most certainly a union action all the way to the guys operating the Twinkie machines.  They were all unionized.

And the last I read, all the people who were members of the former Union, were not welcome at the reopened plant.   They could apply, but if their name showed up, they were not hired.   What employer would want to hire someone who intentionally crashed the prior company?    Yeah, that's who I want on my team......

Seriously.... not very bright.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 30, 2015)

Matthew said:


> If people want to be stupid with their food stamps...Well, they'll be hungry for a couple of extra days every month.
> 
> Who are you cock sucking republicans to tell someone what to spend our safety net on??? You want people to live on the street like a ****** and starve.



Sucks to be you, moron.   Whose safety net is it?   IT IS OUR FREAKIN SAFETY NET.   That's OUR MONEY.  WE PAID FROM OUR HARD EARNED CHECKS......

Who are we to say what you can do with OUR MONEY????    We're the tax payers.  Sucks to be scum bag.   You don't do what we say, you don't get our money anymore.    Oh well.... Too bad..... we can vote too.    







You don't like it???   Here's a thought.... GET OFF YOUR BUTT AND EARN YOUR OWN MONEY.... freakin babies all of you.  Wah wah wah wah.... grow up.   Leftists are all babies.... every single one.


----------



## BlueGin (Jul 30, 2015)

Matthew said:


> If people want to be stupid with their food stamps...Well, they'll be hungry for a couple of extra days every month.
> 
> Who are you cock sucking republicans to tell someone what to spend our safety net on??? You want people to live on the street like a ****** and starve.



It's not just the republicans. Dems ban saturated fats,sodas, sweets etc...

And to all the king crab lovin SNAP recipients .... Smiths has King Crab on sale this week for 7.99 a pound.


----------



## Boss (Jul 30, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Yes, the chart confirms the liberal "meme" about the *gasp* shrinking middle class!  Yet you can see by the demographics, the low-income families have actually declined slightly as well. The number of upper-income families are rising. 

People are ever-changing in life... the outdated Socialist propaganda they have is all geared around a populace who is imprisoned to their class in life... they are the worker class... that's why they are always talking about "the worker" when they yammer on. In OUR country, people don't have to stay in the same class... if they have motivation and ambition, they can better their lot in life and become wealthy. And that's precisely what people do in a free society.


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Ok.    I kept thinking something this conclusive can't possibly have escaped my notice before....  which is why I wanted you to confirm I was reading it right.

See, this is why I hate the media so much.   Clear evidence like this is never presented.... yet the leftards complain about Faux Newws....   As if their media outlets are doing better.

Gah.... these people.....


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 31, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Andy you'll note it says "families."  One of the changes that occurred over that time frame was more and more single income families changed over to two income earning families.  So the delta does not necessarily convert to more income per person but could merely be a factor of additional income earners per family.  You'll also note that it ends at 2009 so does not reflect the bulk of our recession.


----------



## Boss (Jul 31, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes, it's showing the number of families in three various groups, simply defined by income adjusted to 2009 dollars. Yes, there are many more 2-income families now than in 1967. Some households may have 3-4 incomes. What is your point? The ARGUMENT is what is happening to the so-called "middle class" and we see by the graph what is happening very clearly... they are earning more income per family and rising to upper-income level. But this is where the left gets their "middle class is declining" bullshit from. It relies on the simple-minded idea that "the middle class" is this monolithic group of people who, from cradle to grave, are always "middle class" and never any change. Same with "the poor" or "the wealthy" ...it's as if the same people occupy these classes year in and year out and we never have any cross over. 

You have been brainwashed and programmed to think like this by Socialist Marxists. This ideology spread and thrived all across Europe and Asia where people were NOT FREE.  They did not have the opportunity to aspire to a higher "class" because they were relegated to whatever "class" their ruler or king assigned and that was LIFE for them. The "Workers" are people who have no other choice or option in life... they are enslaved to be "workers" until they die. They can't BE BOSSES! 

ALL of the Liberal Socialist Marxist arguments against free market capitalism and free enterprise... ALL the 1% vs. 99% Occutard Shitting on Cop Cars BULLSHIT.... All the War on The Rich... Multi-national Corporations... Speculators, hedge fund managers, CEO salaries... ALL of it.... is predicated on a societal structure where the people have no mobility of class... they cannot move up the economic ladder because of the class they've been assigned in life. They are not FREE people.

In THIS country, people are free to be whatever they dream. People escape lives of destitute poverty... a close personal friend of mine is a singer you've probably heard by the name of Jewel. She was homeless... living in her car when she signed her first record deal. Oprah Winfrey was a sexually-molested poor black girl in rural Mississippi... it does not get much more ABJECT than that... she is now the wealthiest woman in America. Mike Huckabee... someone else who came from abysmal poverty... there are thousands... millions of stories like theirs. 

Free market capitalism and the free enterprise system we have, has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any other system ever tried by humans.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


The point is that if you divide middle class income families by the number of income earners you have a completely different chart.  Put another way if you show that chart by income earners instead of by families then you have a chart that looks more like the ones pushed by the people arguing that middle class income sucks.  Further, if you limit the examples to non-government payroll it gets even worse.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



That's true.... but then whose fault is that?

Where I work, there's a chick there who has a degree in Engineering.    Now my company is a small (20 people including 2 interns) company that is a very lax... very loose... easy going.... place to work.   But the pay sucks.   You can earn more nearly anywhere.

So she back in 2012, decided to quit, and get a job at a major national company.  Her pay nearly doubled.   But.... she was expected to stand and deliver.    She was rolling in the cash, but she was working for it.

8 months later, guess who is calling up our company asking to come back.    She's back in her old position again.   She disappeared 8 months because she had a baby.   She comes in at 10 AM because her son's school closed.  She calls off work because "baby is sick".

What's my point?     Women specifically, and teenagers also, make choices to work easy, lax, low stress jobs, that pay far less than other jobs, because they live in a household that has other income.

By the way, I do the same thing.   I could easily double my income.   I just don't want to do the job.  I'm lazy.

I don't blame the economy for my income being what it is, when I made the choice to have the income that I have.

Problem is, many people do.  And people looking at abstract numbers do the same thing.

But to claim that wages have declined, is ridiculous.   If you take a look at any specific job... not wages over a broad industry.... but SPECIFIC jobs....   wages have NOT declined.






Programmers....  mechanical engineers.... electrical engineers.....  computer software developers....

And by the way, be careful of "Average Salaries".   When you see a chart containing "Average Salaries", you should notice that salaries seem to fall during economic growth times, and spike up during recessions.   People seem to forget that, the people harmed the most by a recession are new entry level, or new employees.   People can't find jobs during the recession.  The people who are highly skilled and thus earn a higher pay, still have their jobs.   Thus the average goes up.

Then when the economy recovers, and all these low-pay entry level people find jobs, the average goes down.

Far from proving wages are falling, it only proves more people are finding jobs.


----------



## Boss (Aug 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> The point is that if you divide middle class income families by the number of income earners you have a completely different chart. Put another way if you show that chart by income earners instead of by families then you have a chart that looks more like the ones pushed by the people arguing that middle class income sucks. Further, if you limit the examples to non-government payroll it gets even worse.



Well we can manipulate statistics around to "show" virtually anything we want. There may be more two income families today but there may have been entire families working in 1967 to run the family business or farm and only the single income reported. Every family is different, individuals have different aspirations and motivations. 

My chart doesn't have anything to do with the rate of pay per individual. It's showing strictly number of families in each of three categories of income. The point is to show you that people and their families move from their "class" all through their lives. 

This is going to be difficult for a liberal to comprehend but the reason we see a trending decline over a long period of time in 'mid-level' incomes (vs. cost of living) is *because* of the minimum wage. We've base-lined the cost of labor across the board. Instead of a wage minimum that is negotiated and can freely fluctuate up and down due to supply and demand... we have a set minimum that doesn't change. All other wages are set according to the rate of minimum wage. 

So... a long time ago, we switched cost of labor from a free market system to a socialist system... years later, we see disappointing results... then you guys blame free market capitalism.  It was YOUR socialist policies which led to the stagnation in wages and we don't have a "redo" button. Not that you're smart enough to use it, you're still promoting more socialist solutions. 

NONE of this has a damn thing to do with what is happening to the so-called "middle class families" in America. They are utilizing the free market and free enterprise to improve their "class" in life.


----------



## KissMy (Aug 1, 2015)

Welfare Spending Exploded under Bush 1 & 2. Clinton Reduced Welfare Spending & Obama has slowed the increase.


----------



## Boss (Aug 1, 2015)

KissMy said:


> Welfare Spending Exploded under Bush 1 & 2...



AS IF... Welfare spending was this arbitrary number that rises and falls depending on how well off people are or how bad things are? 

"Welfare spending" is *appropriated by Congress* each year. If "welfare spending exploded" it's because politicians voted to spend more taxpayer money on welfare. It has nothing to do with the economy or individual circumstances.


----------



## browsing deer (Aug 1, 2015)

This bugs people who don't get food stamps  the things people on food stamps buy.  Which is why I would prefer cash benifits (social security, welfare) be larger and get rid of food stamps.  
If you are getting  money from your neighbor, the nieghbor gets a say on how you spend it.  I personaly would prefer food stamps only buy Kosher.  It is mostly healthy and mostly, with Some exceptions, vegitarian.   
However, I also think you shouldn't expose people on benifits to odium, which is what food stamps do. What is wrong with poor people enjoying a beer?  Food stamps allow people who paid for it to grumble about how you spent it.   It is the worst of all possible worlds.  I know when I see the things people buy on food stamps I usually go "what in the world are buying on MY dime!"  It is human nature.


----------



## KissMy (Aug 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Welfare Spending Exploded under Bush 1 & 2...
> ...



You sheeple believe the cute little story that Bush lost his VETO Pen!


----------



## Boss (Aug 1, 2015)

KissMy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Oh okay... So welfare spending has exploded because no Republican president has obstructed Democrats in congress who increased the spending... so it's REPUBLICAN'S fault?    ...Gotchya!


----------



## Boss (Aug 1, 2015)

browsing deer said:


> This bugs people who don't get food stamps  the things people on food stamps buy.  Which is why I would prefer cash benifits (social security, welfare) be larger and get rid of food stamps.
> If you are getting  money from your neighbor, the nieghbor gets a say on how you spend it.  I personaly would prefer food stamps only buy Kosher.  It is mostly healthy and mostly, with Some exceptions, vegitarian.
> However, I also think you shouldn't expose people on benifits to odium, which is what food stamps do. What is wrong with poor people enjoying a beer?  Food stamps allow people who paid for it to grumble about how you spent it.   It is the worst of all possible worlds.  I know when I see the things people buy on food stamps I usually go "what in the world are buying on MY dime!"  It is human nature.



Again... My proposal is to return to a system like we had before food stamps. We provided people with surplus food staples which we have an abundance of every year. The point is, if you are truly "in need" you should have to endure some sacrifices. No one is going to starve on government cheese and peanut butter and we can do that a LOT more efficiently than what we're doing now.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that if you divide middle class income families by the number of income earners you have a completely different chart. Put another way if you show that chart by income earners instead of by families then you have a chart that looks more like the ones pushed by the people arguing that middle class income sucks. Further, if you limit the examples to non-government payroll it gets even worse.
> ...


I'm much more conservative than you are.  I was just pointing out the difference between the chart you showed and the other charts.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 1, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Post the dot-com boom where wages had taken a ballistic trajectory there was the inevitable falloff.   STEM corporations use H1B visa and freshouts paid at bottom of the rung salaries to reset their salary base while laying off highly experiences highly paid employees...  It's a cycle. 

I make very good money... and yes I could make even more if i wanted to travel or run my own company again.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> > This bugs people who don't get food stamps  the things people on food stamps buy.  Which is why I would prefer cash benifits (social security, welfare) be larger and get rid of food stamps.
> ...


Ayup.. if we are gonna help people eat we should do so by giving them beans, rice, flour, eggs, milk, salt, sugar, potatoes, kale, lettuce, carrots, oranges...  not cash.


----------



## browsing deer (Aug 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > browsing deer said:
> ...


When I see what is in the market basket of folks getting food stamps, works for me.  Unhealthy foods, expensive foods.   

I don't hold with embarrasing folks.  That is why I would prefer a system where poor folks got more cash in their stipend.  Humilation does not work for me.

Let them get their unhealthy trashy food in peace


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 1, 2015)

browsing deer said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Why should I work my butt off so they can buy chips & soda?


----------



## Boss (Aug 1, 2015)

browsing deer said:


> That is why I would prefer a system where poor folks got more cash in their stipend.



You do realize that approximately 38% of the SNAP recipients are the working poor.. they have no other 'stipend' from government?

So... here's what happens to YOUR idea... We get rid of food stamps and add another $200-1200 cash to the checks of people on welfare, disability, social security or whatever... Great Day in America... Food Stamps Ends... This leaves millions of the 'working poor' without nutrition assistance of any kind. THEN we implement a *new* program to provide basic food items to these people who need it.... _*THEN,*_ those who are on welfare, disability and social security are eventually included in that program as well.

Our system... free market capitalism... by it's very nature and existence, provides us with millions of tons worth of agricultural surplus every year. There are two basic things about farming... #1- You don't precisely know how much total yield you will get from your crop; and #2- You cannot sell product that you failed to grow. So when a farmer plants, he usually over-plants. If you under-plant, you screwed yourself.

So we have this natural abundance of surplus agriculture. It goes to waste while we pay poor folks on a debit card so they can go by steaks and lobsters... (to go with the beer they traded on the black market for their bennies.)  
You see... it's stupid. We're stupid.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Aug 1, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?


Good....Food subsidies should be limited to wholesome and nutritious foods ONLY.


----------



## Boss (Aug 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> I'm much more conservative than you are.



I doubt that, Brown.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Aug 1, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.
> ...


hamburger meat is fine...Why not?


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 1, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


It's ground steak...


----------



## Boss (Aug 1, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> It's ground steak...



Actually it's not ground steak unless you want to consider most of the beef chuck "steak." Ground beef is a specific blend of fat to lean, useful for hamburgers and such. It is mostly made from the trimmings from other things, fat (up to 30%) and chuck roast. You can also upgrade to ground chuck and ground steak-- less fat content. 

I actually LIKE a very lean burger... just my preference.. So I will pick out a chuck roast or sometimes even a family pack of round steak... usually on sale... ask the butcher to grind it up... they will do it for free. 

Of course... A food stamp recipient doesn't really care... it's not money to them, they can buy ground filet mignon if they want.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > It's ground steak...
> ...


But, it's steak until ground...there is even fat on steaks...as far as I am concerned, I don't care what meat products they buy...


----------



## Boss (Aug 2, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



No, it doesn't come off the cow as "steak" ...it is chuck shoulder. It can be cut into cheap steak and sometimes it is, but that isn't ground beef.  Ground beef is a prepared product. It contains chuck shoulder (where some steak comes from) and it contains fat trimmings from other cuts as well as general meat trimmings from other cuts. Fat is what makes beef delicious, most good steaks have marbles of fat. But they do not grind up steaks and make ground beef. 

Oh, I know you don't care what meat products they buy... liberals act like juvenile high school seniors on spring break with daddy's credit cards... you don't give a shit what anything is costing us. Just "tax the rich" some more!


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 2, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Has anyone actually proven that the highly qualified, highly experience, highly productive employees are actually being replaced by 'freshouts' and H1Bs?

Lots of claims... but is it possible the reason these people are being laid off, is because they suck?

I've heard this claim a number of times, and never bothered to question it, because I didn't think, and still don't think it's all that big a concern.

*But this time, let me ask, what actual evidence do you have that super high quality high skill people are being dumped in a significant number, in favor of cheaper, less skill, less experienced alternatives?*

Yes I know such and such article, said that so and so claimed.......  But what real evidence do you have?

In all my experience, I can't think of a single time that happened, where there was not some reason behind it.   We had an engineer that spent a year, working on a single project, with little to no determinable progress.  They replaced him with an intern that had the project finished in a few months.  Not because the noob engineer was that good, but rather that the project was really really easy.

He was fired and replaced, purely on incompetence grounds.

One was replaced because he was a jackass.  His skill at his work, went to his head, and started treating people like crap.   The booted him out, and replaced him.   I'm sure he's somewhere complaining about it just like you said here.   But the reason he's gone, is because he became a jackass.

Still another possibility is that the company has simply changed, and can't afford them.   Nothing in life is static.  Everything is in an eternal state of flux.

My uncle is an engineer with management experience.  His company sent him to China to sell their products.  For awhile, he was doing great.  But over time, the market dried up for his products, and eventually that department was closed.    There was no other department that needed him.   When the plug was pulled, he was let go.

You can't pay employees millions in wages, for a department that now brings in a few hundred thousand a year.  It's called math.

I'm not saying that's how it is for everyone.  Maybe you are right.   But.....   there is a reason companies pay for high quality, high skill, high experienced engineers to begin with.   There's a reason.   

It's because, one top notch, Grade A, engineer is generally worth a dozens fresh engineers.   I've seen this myself.   You can give the same project to 5 fresh engineers, and 2 twenty year veteran engineers, and it will take the 5 engineers a year, to do what the 2 veterans do in a month.

*Real on the job skill, and honest years of experience, can not be replaced, not matter what schooling you have.*

So when you say a company is using cheap freshouts and H1Bs, as replacements for experienced highly skill engineers.....    honestly most companies wouldn't save money doing that.   The time required for engineers to complete a project, would offset the savings.   The quality of the finished product, would be so low, as to offset the savings.

If Mercedes fires all of their top engineers in favor of $30,000 engineers.....  and then end up spending the next 10 years to end up with a Scion IQ quality car...  that's a not a savings.   They'd end up bankrupt doing that.

If it were really possible to find cheap engineers, and still have same time frame for the highest quality product.......  then Logically.....  No one would ever pay any engineer the salaries we know they get.

So I'm skeptical of the entire claim.  But I'm open to exploring it.  What evidence do you have that this is really happening?


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 2, 2015)

browsing deer said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



But it should be embarrassing.   A healthy, able-bodied person, living off the hard work of others, while contributing nothing at all to society.......   they should be embarrassed.   I want them embarrassed.


----------



## BlueGin (Aug 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> > This bugs people who don't get food stamps  the things people on food stamps buy.  Which is why I would prefer cash benifits (social security, welfare) be larger and get rid of food stamps.
> ...



Yep. Instead of increasing SNAP benefits. Teach the folks in the program  how to budget meals on what they are currently getting. Make budgeting classes mandatory to get benefits. Just like they do for daycare aid and childcare classes.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > I'm much more conservative than you are.
> ...


  Liberty for all!


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 2, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


For hand-outs yes. For hand-ups no.  Just as our children should not be embarrassed by a hand-up from their parents a neighbor should not be embarrassed by a hand-up that they pay back.


----------



## BlueGin (Aug 2, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Can't be helped. They applied for aid. At least it's a debit card instead if the actual food stamps of the past.


----------



## Boss (Aug 2, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > browsing deer said:
> ...



I'm not really interested in creating yet another 'cottage industry' capitalizing on tax dollars. If people want to learn to budget, listen to Dave Ramsey. It's not my problem if you've reached adulthood and haven't learned to budget. My proposal is to take away the damn credit cards and replace those with a basket of fresh produce and surplus foods we have an abundance of.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 2, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Why? Is it justification for your stigmatizing other humans for satiation?


----------



## BlueGin (Aug 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




I believe we still do in some cases. I know a few seniors that pick up government issue meat,cereal, bread, cheese, beans,rice and milk once a month.

My point is put conditions on benefits. Time limits... manditory budgeting classes... Proof of employment,going to school...job applications and interviews etc.

Make them work for it.


----------



## Boss (Aug 2, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> I believe we still do in some cases. I know a few seniors that pick up government issue meat,cereal, bread, cheese, beans,rice and milk once a month.
> 
> My point is put conditions on benefits. Time limits... manditory budgeting classes... Proof of employment,going to school...job applications and interviews etc.
> 
> Make them work for it.



Well, food stamps or SNAP is currently going to a LOT of people, not all of them can work or go to school. Some are getting other benefits and some are not, some are retired and some are not. Some people on food stamps might have college degrees in finance... it might not be a matter of not knowing how to budget... Cookie-cutter ideas aren't ever going to be effective. 

Mandatory [fill in the blank] classes are NOT useful for anything. By their very nature, some people will automatically reject anything that is mandatory. Oh, you want to _*MAKE*_ me learn it? Watch and see how _*stupid*_ I can be! Offer classes for people who *WANT* to learn? Sure! I have no problem with that, but I don't think that's our problem here. 

We have a serious budget problem. We've got to find a way to cut our spending. We can't cut our spending by implementing mandatory budget classes... that just costs us MORE money and all it does is adds another hoop to jump through for people who just need food.


----------



## BlueGin (Aug 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > I believe we still do in some cases. I know a few seniors that pick up government issue meat,cereal, bread, cheese, beans,rice and milk once a month.
> ...



We already employ the case workers. Have them give monthly mandatory seminars on a Saturday. They already do it for unemployment and folks receiving daycare aid. Use the same facility. Make them show they are making an effort to get off SNAP.


----------



## Boss (Aug 2, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> We already employ the case workers. Have them give monthly mandatory seminars on a Saturday. They already do it for unemployment and folks receiving daycare aid. Use the same facility. Make them show they are making an effort to get off SNAP.



Uhm.. We don't employ case workers who's job is to come in monthly on Saturday to teach poor people how to budget their money. If we ADD that program, new people who are professionally qualified to conduct such seminars would be hired. Case workers are case workers.... they already have a job and job description... they are NOT financial experts. 

And SOME people can't "get off SNAP" because they depend on it. I am currently helping out a personal friend of mine who I went to school with... He is my age (55) and lost his job 5 years ago when the economy tanked. He can't get another job in his field because technology has now advanced so far his job is obsolete. He worked at a computer and isn't able to do much physical labor due to back problems and chronic COPD. He probably qualifies for disability but it's extremely hard to get on disability these days, thanks to Obamacare. He is too young to retire but the jobs out there are not suitable for his personal circumstances and abilities. He has managed to survive by doing various odd jobs for people, the benevolence of friends and family, a good relationship with his church, and SNAP benefits.


----------



## Boss (Aug 2, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> We already employ the case workers. Have them give monthly mandatory seminars on a Saturday. They already do it for unemployment and folks receiving daycare aid. Use the same facility. Make them show they are making an effort to get off SNAP.



ALSO... I guarantee you that there are already programs offering seminars like this out there. We've already done this, if people want to get off their ass and go. 

You cannot mandate learning. 

People either have the desire to learn or they don't learn. It's really that simple. I get that you think it would all be okay if we just made these people do SOMETHING for the hand outs. I think a lot of people agree with you on that... I think that way too about certain programs. But the key, in my opinion, is to create some motivation. You have to first motivate people to WANT to learn.... to WANT to do better. 

With my idea to replace SNAP with agricultural surplus, you still get free food... no one would starve... you may have to go home and shuck corn or shell peas... the peanut butter may need stirring up a little... but if you are hungry, this shouldn't be a problem. There is a *motivation* there to improve your situation.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 2, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> browsing deer said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Why should you work your butt off so they can buy anything?  You lose me at the "paying for other people" line.  I'm not going to be okay with it just because they buy things I approve of.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 2, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > browsing deer said:
> ...


I have no choice my government forces me to fund this hand-out program.  My income goes to this program, thus I'm paying for it.  I would personally be less upset about my income being stolen and redistributed if we were feeding people who are starving if there is verification that they will in fact starve, that there are no charities available to feed them.  But then I'd like to make sure it's food that makes more sense.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 2, 2015)

Oh, HOGWASH......no one's money is stolen, this is a democratic Republic, our representatives voted for such RKM.....

Do unto others as you want to be done to yourself.....

So, if I were temporarily in need of food stamps, I would not want you to micro manage what I felt was necessary....cutting out meat, is simply not right....

If it was cutting out beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes etc, I personally would have no objection to such....it would make sense to me, not having the ability to buy those type of things with food stamps, but to cut out steak is utterly ridiculous and just simply envy of the unrightous imo.

And where I live, to cut out lobster, when it is the same price per pound as ground beef is also ridiculous....  most people on food stamps are smart enough to know where the bargains are in their region and are not cheating or abusing the system.....

The handful of abusers should not dictate changes in the law, of good, but temporarily hard up, citizens imo.


----------



## Boss (Aug 2, 2015)

Care4all said:


> most people on food stamps are smart enough to know where the bargains are in their region and are not cheating or abusing the system.....



Why would they care about bargains? It's not like they are spending money they earned. They get no real benefit out of bargain shopping. And no, MOST people aren't cheating or abusing the system but enough of them ARE. 

I was recently in a store behind a woman who was trying to buy a 5lb bag of dog food with her EBT... the clerk told her she couldn't, so she goes back in the store and returns with a 5lb package of ground beef instead. Is it right that you and I are feeding a poor woman's dog ground beef? 

Another time, I was helping out a friend who has a mom and pop convenience store... they accept EBT... A middle age man who looked to be very healthy, comes in with about 5 kids... they get a buggy and hit the candy isle.. loaded up on junk and candy... ice cream... frozen pizza was the most "nutritious" food idem they purchased... It's was over $100 of pure junk. All of it paid for with Food Stamps. When you are out making these kinds of purchases, you're not in distress wondering where you next meal is coming from.


----------



## Socialist (Aug 2, 2015)

Shameful way to humiliate those in need, that's all this is.


----------



## Boss (Aug 2, 2015)

Socialist said:


> Shameful way to humiliate those in need, that's all this is.



I don't want to humiliate anyone. I read a good quote a while back, can't recall who it was from... "Sometimes shame is a luxury you can't afford." I think that is true. When you are truly in distress and need help, there is no shame, there is no humiliation. 

I have no problem helping people in need, but I also think many of our programs fail to help. They enable a person to be dependent and not really give a shit. They don't motivate people to pick themselves up and do better. That's not 'helping' them any at all.


----------



## rdean (Aug 2, 2015)

timslash said:


> That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
> Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
> Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
> I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?


Republicans will say people on food stamps in Missouri are black.  But only about 11% of the state is black.  And yet about 16% get food stamps.  And it's not likely that every black in Missouri get food stamps.  Which of course would mean that plenty of whites get food stamps.  And you know most whites in Missouri are Republican.  So it's very likely that a lot of Republicans in Missouri get food stamps.
I kind of like when Republicans screw over their base.  Especially with a presidential election coming up.  Makes you wonder who they will vote for.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Aug 2, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


No it isn't....Its not a steak cut...It is either the "round" ( which is from the hind quarter) or "chuck" which comes from the upper of the front shoulder.
Neither of which are expensive cuts. 
Now, is there anything else you'd like to discuss?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Aug 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Socialist said:
> 
> 
> > Shameful way to humiliate those in need, that's all this is.
> ...


Our politicians, and they know who they are, have in the name of getting reelected, made not working and in some cases, poverty, comfortable.


----------



## Boss (Aug 2, 2015)

rdean said:


> *Republicans will say* people on food stamps in Missouri are black.  But only about 11% of the state is black.  And yet about 16% get food stamps.  And it's not likely that every black in Missouri get food stamps.  Which of course would mean that plenty of whites get food stamps.  And you know most whites in Missouri are Republican.  So it's very likely that a lot of Republicans in Missouri get food stamps.
> I kind of like when Republicans screw over their base.  Especially with a presidential election coming up.  Makes you wonder who they will vote for.



I'm 55 years old, and I have NEVER heard a single Republican EVER say "People on Food Stamps are black!" I've not heard it implied or suggested. Not by any Republican candidate, politician or elected official. Not by any Republican pundit or talk show host.  The ONLY people I've ever heard this from are LIBERALS making the argument that Republicans claim this.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 3, 2015)

Care4all said:


> Oh, HOGWASH......no one's money is stolen, this is a democratic Republic, our representatives voted for such RKM.....
> 
> Do unto others as you want to be done to yourself.....
> 
> ...


Voting to steal my income for redistribution does not make it right.  It's still stealing.  I don't steal from others and I expect the same from others through income redistribution and I expect the same from others.

I did not say cut out meat did I?

Cutting out steak... well it depends on the cut doesn't it?  Do you think a person that is supposedly starving should go out and get $30 a pound steak on my dime? 

The issue is we give them debit cards that are used to supplement their income, it is income redistribution.  Worse it's income redistribution that encourages them to keep their income low enough to continue getting said redistribution for as long as we let them.  We are hurting them.  We are encouraging them to stay poor so they can keep their welfare.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 3, 2015)

Socialist said:


> Shameful way to humiliate those in need, that's all this is.


So if we hand out good food to people who are starving we are humiliating them?  The only way to do it right is to deposit cash in their bank accounts from DC? lol


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 3, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I have to disagree.  I don't really give a damn what other people eat, I consider their ignorant insistence on eating junk to be a real-life demonstration of Darwin's "survival of the fittest", and there's absolutely nothing that's ever going to make me feel better about being strong-armed into a nanny government.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > most people on food stamps are smart enough to know where the bargains are in their region and are not cheating or abusing the system.....
> ...



I don't think it's because they don't care, so much as that Care4All is wrong about the presumed intelligence of people on food stamps.  Or of people in general, for that matter.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 3, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Socialist said:
> 
> 
> > Shameful way to humiliate those in need, that's all this is.
> ...



If they aren't humiliated, then something's very wrong, because they ought to be.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 3, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I don't give a shit what they want to eat... I just don't want to give them my money that I worked hard for just so they can piss it away on shit.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > *Republicans will say* people on food stamps in Missouri are black.  But only about 11% of the state is black.  And yet about 16% get food stamps.  And it's not likely that every black in Missouri get food stamps.  Which of course would mean that plenty of whites get food stamps.  And you know most whites in Missouri are Republican.  So it's very likely that a lot of Republicans in Missouri get food stamps.
> ...



Rderp is a bigot, but he can't admit it to himself, so he projects it onto others, which allows him to say all the racist, hateful things he's thinking out loud by erroneously attributing them to some nebulous "them".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 3, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I don't want to give them my money, period.  I consider it pissed away automatically at that point, regardless of what they buy.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 3, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I'm good with that.  End all federal involvement in all social programs.


----------



## Boss (Aug 3, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I don't want to give them my money, period. I consider it pissed away automatically at that point, regardless of what they buy.





RKMBrown said:


> I'm good with that. End all federal involvement in all social programs.



Okay, to play 'devil's advocate' here, what are we going to do about the '47%ers' who will riot and burn cities in protest over these measures? 

The way I see it, you can't radically cut the cord any more than you can radically turn the country into a socialist nation. We have to use a conservative approach to problem solving and eliminating programs which do not work. Trim our budgets by cutting out pork-laden bills and the usual crap that goes on in Washington. This has become such a JOKE that they could literally go into session debating the 'End All Social Programs Act'... (sponsored by Brown and Cecilie)... and when finished, would actually result in an _*increase*_ in overall social spending for the taxpayers.  

We have to stop expecting government to "do more government" in order to fix stuff. It's not working, it just doesn't work. It's almost like being ass raped... the less action from the rapist the better. We need to find ways to solve our problems through private sector resources. If we don't ween America off this government dependency, we're in trouble... one way or another. We will have riots in the streets and a collapse of civilization, and that day is certainly coming.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want to give them my money, period. I consider it pissed away automatically at that point, regardless of what they buy.
> ...


Thus my recommendation to switch over from hand-outs to hand-ups.


----------



## Boss (Aug 3, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Thus my recommendation to switch over from hand-outs to hand-ups.



And there is nothing wrong with your idea, I support you on that. However, the reality is, we have a nation partially full of people who have become accustomed to the hand outs. So how do we transition without causing major turmoil and civil unrest? 

I think part of our solution should be to make the "hand out" less desirable than what could be attained through effort and work. This introduces a 'motivation' to not accept the hand out for any longer than you need it. You're not "starving poor people to death" anymore.


----------



## Dragonlady (Aug 4, 2015)

How about having a minimum wage that realistically could support one person living modestly.  That way the working poor would get the money they earned, and you don't get to tell them how to live their lives.


----------



## BlueGin (Aug 4, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> How about having a minimum wage that realistically could support one person living modestly.  That way the working poor would get the money they earned, and you don't get to tell them how to live their lives.


There will always be a working poor. Politicians and government workers make to much money off of exploiting them.

Keep dreaming


----------



## Boss (Aug 4, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> How about having a minimum wage that realistically could support one person living modestly.  That way the working poor would get the money they earned, and you don't get to tell them how to live their lives.



Most free market capitalists can give you at least a dozen reasons this doesn't work. In fact, this week the news had a story about the big wig liberal CEO in Seattle who decided 3 months ago to pay all his employees $70k a year, same as his own salary.. uh oh... he has now "fallen on hard times" and will be discontinuing his policy.  Three months! That's how long it took to fail. 

You can't pay people based on what they need to fulfill their wants. People are paid by what they bring to the table and how much benefit they are to those who hire them. Minimum wage jobs were NEVER intended to be jobs that support anyone. If you force them into that role, you know what happens to those jobs? They disappear. If I have to pay you $15 an hr. to scrub my toilets, I'll just have to live with dirty toilets. OR-- I'll pay someone fairly well to invent a self-cleaning toilet and make the job obsolete. Now, instead of having a crappy minimum wage job, there is no job at all.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want to give them my money, period. I consider it pissed away automatically at that point, regardless of what they buy.
> ...



I'm not suggesting radically cutting the cord.  Correct and appropriate, sadly enough, do not equal feasible in this country at this juncture in our history.

At this point, what that leaves me is that I'm adamantly opposed to increasing and furthering the nanny mentality by trying to micromanage people's lives further.  It's not good for the mindset of the micromanagers, nor for the mindset of those micromanaged, who will simply become ever more accustomed to depending on others to tell them how to think and live.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Thus my recommendation to switch over from hand-outs to hand-ups.
> ...



I think we also really screwed up when we lost the understanding that guilt and shame serve useful, necessary functions in society and started striving to make everyone feel good about everything they did, no matter what.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 4, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> How about having a minimum wage that realistically could support one person living modestly.  That way the working poor would get the money they earned, and you don't get to tell them how to live their lives.



Yes, what we REALLY want is to encourage people to settle into a nothing, entry-level, unskilled job that could be done just as well by an adolescent just out of junior high, or possibly a trained chimp.

Hey, why don't we just pay them a basic living stipend to sit on their dead asses on the couch in front of the boob tube, drinking beer?  That way, they don't even have to leave their Section 8 apartments at all and get all sweaty and tired.


----------



## Boss (Aug 4, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm not suggesting radically cutting the cord. Correct and appropriate, sadly enough, do not equal feasible in this country at this juncture in our history.



Exactly... we have to implement gradual changes, baby steps at first. Weed out programs that aren't working, replace some programs with better programs resourced through the private sector. Cut out the waste and redundancy. We can feed hungry people for a lot less than we're currently spending on the SNAP program and more importantly, motivate those people to get back on their feet and be productive to society again. It doesn't have to be ruthless and hardhearted... we can provide safety nets and essentials for those in need without running deficits every year.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Thus my recommendation to switch over from hand-outs to hand-ups.
> ...


Easy... give em a job, make em earn their income instead of handing it to them for nothing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 4, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 
While I agree with you in principle, I wonder where we're supposed to get these jobs to just hand out to people not motivated enough to get their own, particularly in this economy.


----------



## Camp (Aug 4, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The concept of no work, no pay (benefits) is dependent on having jobs and transportation to the jobs. Often the programs that force welfare recipients to work end up costing more than if the recipient was just left alone. Until manufacturing jobs are returned to this country this problem will persist. As long as we make it profitable for companies to ship jobs overseas and off shore we are screwed.


----------



## Boss (Aug 4, 2015)

Camp said:


> The concept of no work, no pay (benefits) is dependent on having jobs and transportation to the jobs. Often the programs that force welfare recipients to work end up costing more than if the recipient was just left alone. Until manufacturing jobs are returned to this country this problem will persist. As long as we make it profitable for companies to ship jobs overseas and off shore we are screwed.



Well.. Four things cause the manufacturing jobs to leave in the first place. 1)Unions 2)Taxes 3NAFTA 4)GATT.  Now, we're not going to get rid of unions or taxes, and we can't get rid of NAFTA and GATT.  So we're screwed. You geniuses THINK that you can somehow force companies to bring jobs back by punishing outsourcing or making it more difficult to outsource... that won't solve this problem. You see... If the company moves it's HQ to the country where the production is done, it's not "outsourcing" anymore. On top of eliminating all the jobs, you've now eliminated all the companies who provide them as well. 

If you are serious about wanting to bring back the manufacturing sector jobs, there are two things we can do. Reform collective bargaining so that we can roll back the ridiculous union overreach and bring union wages back into accordance with normal private sector labor. And, reduce or eliminate corporate taxation. I would eliminate it entirely.


----------



## Camp (Aug 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > The concept of no work, no pay (benefits) is dependent on having jobs and transportation to the jobs. Often the programs that force welfare recipients to work end up costing more than if the recipient was just left alone. Until manufacturing jobs are returned to this country this problem will persist. As long as we make it profitable for companies to ship jobs overseas and off shore we are screwed.
> ...


Neither unions nor taxes send jobs overseas. We control the market. Without making product sales in the USA most of those companies will go out of business. Beer maker Sam Adams is threatening to move off shore. Lets watch what happens. Probably be the end of Sam Adams beer sales in America. Sort of like when Bud got sold to overseas investors. Sale plummeted and little American craft breweries surged. Populism is taking off in Republican and Democratic demo's. Pro America is trending.


----------



## Boss (Aug 4, 2015)

Camp said:


> Neither unions nor taxes send jobs overseas. We control the market. Without making product sales in the USA most of those companies will go out of business. Beer maker Sam Adams is threatening to move off shore. Lets watch what happens. Probably be the end of Sam Adams beer sales in America. Sort of like when Bud got sold to overseas investors. Sale plummeted and little American craft breweries surged. Populism is taking off in Republican and Democratic demo's. Pro America is trending.



Ever-increasing union demands as well as ever-increasing tax and regulation cannot be described any other rational way except a mitigating factor for why corporations outsource labor. If you are too stupid or illiterate to understand what a "mitigating factor" is... can't do much to help ya. 

If you read my post entirely, you will see that I listed two more things besides unions and taxes... did you forget to include them?  These two things are important to my argument. You see, it was the *combination* of unions/taxes along with passage of NAFTA and GATT which enabled corporations to send jobs to our new trade partners. Those who were vehemently opposed to NAFTA and GATT (I was one of them) tried to warn you that this was going to happen. Then, just like now, you would not listen. This was going to help all these third world countries economically, and that was going to make the world better... share the wealth... It was going to force our companies to be more competitive, it was going to drive wages up in these foreign countries because they would have to compete with the American workers... none of it worked out like your people planned and now our manufacturing sector jobs are all gone.


----------



## Camp (Aug 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Neither unions nor taxes send jobs overseas. We control the market. Without making product sales in the USA most of those companies will go out of business. Beer maker Sam Adams is threatening to move off shore. Lets watch what happens. Probably be the end of Sam Adams beer sales in America. Sort of like when Bud got sold to overseas investors. Sale plummeted and little American craft breweries surged. Populism is taking off in Republican and Democratic demo's. Pro America is trending.
> ...



You sound like one of those condescending fucks that need to make shit up and accuse people of things you could not possibly know. I left out NAFTA and GATT because I happen to believe they helped caused the lose of jobs in America. So, I agreed with half of what you said, but you are too big headed and ego driven to accept anything other than complete and total endorsement of your opinion. You didn't warn me of anything asshole. And your reference to "my people" shows just what a dick you are. Keep stroking yourself and your ego. Sounds like you are in desperate need of some kind of sense of being something you will never be.


----------



## Boss (Aug 4, 2015)

Camp said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Well I guess you need to learn how to *communicate* with others. You didn't say a thing about agreeing with me on anything. You immediately attacked me and told me what *we* control, what *we're* going to do, how things *are* going to be. Then you take a sissy-slap at Populism for some odd reason. 

Now that we've established you understand the enabling of outsourcing, we can focus on what the motivations were for these corporations to do so. When you can have your widget built in Mexico for $3 and hr., why would you pay American workers $20 hr.? If you can avoid millions complying with health care mandates, family leave mandates, all the other mandates regarding employment of a US worker... Why wouldn't you outsource? I'm not even talking about demands from unions yet or ever-increasing tax policies. 

My point is, we cannot begin to address this problem until we face the assorted motivations which caused it. It's not as easy as saying... well let's just repeal NAFTA and GATT!  Can't do that so easily. US Companies have billions invested now, the trade partners have billions invested, millions of jobs in their countries, entire economies stand to be devastated. Do you want to sever diplomatic relationships with these people and make them our enemies? So we're kind of stuck now with what we did. And perhaps we're also stuck with union thugs pushing around corporations while pinheads cheer them on? 

Bottom line: We cannot resolve the crisis with manufacturing jobs leaving America until we address the motivations behind it and why it has happened. Heaping further penalties on the companies who took advantage of NAFTA and GATT is not the answer. Again--- I am telling you that something you are thinking about doing is a dumb and stupid idea--- you're not listening.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 5, 2015)

Camp said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



And yet all during the 1990s, when NAFTA was in full swing, the unemployment rate went.....  up or down?    Down.

And GATT....   GATT has been around since the 1940s.   I'm confused why you could even attempt to blame GATT for anything.   If GATT caused job loss, then by now after 70 years, there shouldn't be a single job left anywhere in the world.

What a bonkers claim that is.


----------



## Camp (Aug 5, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You seem to like connecting things that perhaps have no real significant connection to the points you are trying to make. Because NAFTA and low unemployment occurred in the same decade you connect them. Could there be other factors involved? Perhaps the tech bubble? Did anything else go on in the 90's that would have brought jobs besides as you seem to claim, NAFTA?
GATT turned into the WTO during the Reagan years. In the late 40's it started with a dozen countries making trade and tariff agreements. By the time Reagan got his hands on it, it became almost a hundred counties. It has always been seen as a great benefit to corporations, huge global ones in particular, but not so good for domestic employment. Not for America at least. You can thank GATT for jobs fleeing America in the 80's and continuing to this day. The latest threat, beer maker Sam Adams. Without GATT they could never think about closing down an American brewery and moving it off shore. 
GATT doesn't reduce global jobs, it only reduces jobs in America.


----------



## Boss (Aug 5, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> And GATT.... GATT has been around since the 1940s. I'm confused why you could even attempt to blame GATT for anything.



When I mention GATT, I am talking about the 1994 revision which implemented the WTO.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 6, 2015)

Camp said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



I'm making no such connection.   The claim was that NAFTA destroyed jobs.   After NAFTA was implemented, and for years following, unemployment went down.

The evidence contradicts the claim.     I made no claim.  The other person made the claim, and the claim isn't supported by the evidence.

The tech bubble was virtually a non-event from an employment perspective.   Most of the (dot com) type companies, employed very few people.  The bubble burst in 2000, and the unemployment rate for 2000 was 4%.  In 2001, it was only 4.2%.    Barely a noticeable difference.

In 2003 the unemployment rate was only 5.8% and declined from there to 4.6% in 2007.

Point being, again, if NAFTA was truly the job killer that some people are screaming it is.... then how is it that 15 years later, the unemployment rate was all they way down to 4.6%?

*Again, if GATT had been off shoring jobs since the 1940s, or the WTO since the 1980s... then we should have an unemployment rate of 80% by now.*    The evidence simply doesn't back the claim.

And I also can't figure out how trade inherently harms one country, but magically benefits every other country.    Also, why don't the people of those countries see it that way?

Why is it when the WTO meets in Europe, there are always massive protests?

In 2012, the WTO met in Russia, with protests that this would destroy jobs, and benefit the west.

In 2013, the WTO met in indonesia, where protesters claimed the WTO was only there to benefit the United States at the expense of the local economy.

In 2005, the WTO met in Hong Kong, and protests started claiming that trade would drive all the farmers in South Korea out of business.

Over and over and over, every single place that trade promoted by the WTO, everyone in their country, thinks that they will be harmed at the benefit of every other country.

But these are all mutually exclusive claims.   It's impossible that free trade will benefit "everyone else" and always harm "our jobs".

Which is exactly why the doom and gloom sky-is-falling predictions that surrounded the WTO to this day, have never come true.


----------



## Claudette (Aug 6, 2015)

If they want to buy steak and seafood with that handy dandy EBT card then let em.

When they run out of money before the end of the month it will be just to damned bad.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Aug 6, 2015)

^^^ Amen to that. And then next time if there is one for them, they will remember to spend their money more wisely.

God bless you always!!!   

Holly

P.S. Actually to me, that is how it should be for anyone. Prioritize and wisely spend and you will have fewer problems.


----------



## Boss (Aug 6, 2015)

Claudette said:


> If they want to buy steak and seafood with that handy dandy EBT card then let em.
> 
> When they run out of money before the end of the month it will be just to damned bad.



Here in Alabama (not sure if it's the same everywhere) whenever someone makes a purchase on EBT, the register receipt will show their balance after purchase. I've seen folks with EBT balances over $1,500.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2015)

Camp said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




Aaaaand . . . cue the _ad hominems_.


----------



## Camp (Aug 7, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Aaaaand ....can you make a coherent point?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2015)

Claudette said:


> If they want to buy steak and seafood with that handy dandy EBT card then let em.
> 
> When they run out of money before the end of the month it will be just to damned bad.



Works for me.  Besides, sometimes you can get really good prices on that stuff for sales and such.  Just last week, my local grocery store had family packs of petite sirloin steaks on sale for less than the ground turkey, AND they had several packages that turned up in the manager's special (meaning it was still there at the end of the day, needs to be used immediately, and has to be sold for reduced price).  I see no reason to prevent them from taking advantage of such a deal if they wish, or to insist that they buy lower-quality meat for a higher per-pound price.  I personally buy salmon on manager's special all the time, because it's a great price, it's a nice change for my family, and it's very healthy and nutritious.  Why the hell not?

But yeah.  If you don't manage your shopping dollars well, sucks to be you.  Your problem.  Why is this such a confusing concept?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2015)

Camp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



You signaled that you had lost the debate by resorting to empty personal attacks with no substantive argument.

Sorry I didn't make that clear enough for you.  Need me to break out the Crayolas and draw you a nice picture?


----------



## Camp (Aug 7, 2015)

Lost what debate? A poster interpreted my comments like he was a mind reader and I could tell by his analysis that he was not reading my mind. He was in an aggressive and hostile mode and I objected to him trying to take his frustration out on one of my post. It worked.
Perhaps you are talking about the subject of the OP. Yes, I might have lost that debate. My position from early on was that SNAP should have restrictions similar to WIC that limit types of food available to an approved list of nutritional and economical selections.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 7, 2015)

Claudette said:


> If they want to buy steak and seafood with that handy dandy EBT card then let em.
> 
> When they run out of money before the end of the month it will be just to damned bad.





JOSweetHeart said:


> ^^^ Amen to that. And then next time if there is one for them, they will remember to spend their money more wisely.
> 
> God bless you always!!!
> 
> ...



Both of you are completely missing the point.

The whole reason that people using their EBT cards to purchase steak and seafood, is that they don't need the money.

If a person was completely impoverished and worrying about where their next meal was coming from..... we wouldn't even be talking about this, because it wouldn't happen.

The whole reason they are doing this is because they are not starving.

In fact, the majority are not even buying food for themselves.   They are buying food for someone else, who paid them money for it.

We had this happen right on our production floor.  A lady came in with an EBT card, and asked everyone if they wanted to buy it from her.

How does this work?    Well if you have an EBT card with $500 on it, you pay the girl $200, and she buys you $500 worth of food.   It costs her nothing, and now she's got $200 in cash to buy drugs or a new Iphone.

How was she working a full time job, and yet collecting EBT, which she sold to get more money?    Easy.  Fraud.  We've been telling the left about that for ages.

No one is going to buy steak and shrimp and then go hungry for the rest of the month.  They are typically selling the card, and pocketing the cash.


----------



## Boss (Aug 7, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> No one is going to buy steak and shrimp and then go hungry for the rest of the month. They are typically selling the card, and pocketing the cash.



Not always but it does happen. 

What is MORE of a problem is the amount we are now paying is way too much. People can scrimp and save for a few months and accumulate a pretty hefty amount in their account, then go splurge on luxury items. As I said, I've seen balances over $1,500 in their EBT accounts. We are WAY out of whack with regard to realistic expectations. A family of four in Alabama with no income or fixed income, gets about $200 a week on average in food stamps. While a typical family of four is trying to stay below $100 a week. 

The entire system needs to go.  We need to replace food assistance as we know it with something different. Our government has enormous surplus of food... we ship it all over the world! We feed it to our soldiers! Liberals want the government to control everything... why not have them send out "care packages" with MREs to the hungry disadvantaged? We can do something like that MUCH cheaper!


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > No one is going to buy steak and shrimp and then go hungry for the rest of the month. They are typically selling the card, and pocketing the cash.
> ...



I think it happens far more than people realize.  In fact, I'd say it's the majority of scenarios by far.   There's a reason why the obesity rate for the "poor" is higher than the middle and upper class.

Now I do like your MRE idea.  That would be fantastic.  Of course it'll never happen.  The supreme court would ban that as cruel and unusual punishment.

But the problem is... we simply don't need food stamps at all.    Why are we giving people food, when there are hundreds of charities for giving out food?      I served soup.   If they want a meal, they can waddle their over weight butt down to the soup kitchen and get served a full meal.

If they are truly unemployed, they have more than enough time to waddle on down.  Of course most of them have a car.   Funny how they can't feed themselves without government aid, but can afford a car, and feed it fuel.


----------



## BlueGin (Aug 8, 2015)

JOSweetHeart said:


> ^^^ Amen to that. And then next time if there is one for them, they will remember to spend their money more wisely.
> 
> God bless you always!!!
> 
> ...



No. The government will increase their benefits.


----------



## BlueGin (Aug 8, 2015)

Albertsons had pkgs of Salmon, Tilapia and Swai on for buy one get three free last week. There is no reason people can't stock up on things when they go on sale and eat well on a budget.


----------



## BlueGin (Aug 8, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > If they want to buy steak and seafood with that handy dandy EBT card then let em.
> ...


 Same with WIC. We had a girl at work who would hand out jars of peanut butter and boxes if cereal because she " had too many".


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Aug 8, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Where we live you can go to the grocery the day benefits come out and have numerous people offer to sell them to you, they hang out in front of the stores


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 8, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



Same.   You on to Walmart on benefits day... and the lines are packed with crazy people.


----------



## Boss (Aug 8, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Now I do like your MRE idea. That would be fantastic. Of course it'll never happen. The supreme court would ban that as cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> But the problem is... we simply don't need food stamps at all. Why are we giving people food, when there are hundreds of charities for giving out food? I served soup. If they want a meal, they can waddle their over weight butt down to the soup kitchen and get served a full meal.



Well, like I said... if MREs are good enough for our troops...?  

I think we do need some kind of food program for certain people. I share your sentiments about the lazy who just sponge off the government.. they need to go. However, there are legitimately people who fall between the cracks, who have individual problems which are unique to their situation. I have no problem helping them.. they shouldn't be eating better than MY family.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 8, 2015)

C rations were whey better than MRE's...


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Aug 9, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> C rations were whey better than MRE's...



They didn't have the chemical heater bags, the M&M's, the tiny bottles of tabasco sauce, or the variety of modern MRE's.  What was better?


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 9, 2015)

Like I said, you don't have to convince me.  It's the public you have to convince.  

And you know the people on food stamps and welfare are going to scream bloody murder.  You know they will, because you are taking away a source of income.

47 Million voters, are going to be screaming and having a fit.

It's going to be highly difficult for any politician who wants to keep their cushy government job to try and change that.   More over, there are hundreds of people on capital hill right now who have made their career out of giving away free stuff.

Continuing, you'll also have to convince the Department of Agriculture, and their 100,000 plus government employees, who would see staff and funding cuts.   The DOA is the 5th or 6th largest Federal Agency, and those numbers don't include State level.   The DOA doesn't run the program at the Federal level, but rather each State has their own agency, running through the DOA.   Each having their own funding, and employment.

Each of those state level agencies would also see funding and employment cuts, and they will automatically oppose it.   In fact, here in Ohio, the total cost for all food programs, is well over a half a billion a year.   It's a massive amount of money.

And let's not forget the major players in the business of government, who stand to lose extremely lucrative contracts.
EBT NextGen is Only Conference in U.S. Focused on the 73 Billion in Electronic Benefits Payments Impacting More than 47 Million People Business Wire

Business Wire, now owned by none other than Berkshire Halthaway (infamous democrat Buffet), signed a massive contract with the USDA in providing EBT service, along with Citigroup, which services EBT for 29 different states.  JP Morgan has a 9-year contract worth $177 Million dollars, not including user fees.

You think Buffet is going to support this move, cutting him out of the gravy train?  Or JP Morgan, or Citi Group, or any of the other banks?

Yes, to you and me, this is an obvious solution.   Give people MREs, and let them choose to take it or leave it.

But now that this system is in place, and there are tons of people making money off the status quo.... it's going to be difficult to change.   This is why you avoid having these programs to begin with.  Once started, they are darn near impossible to get rid of, or modify.

It will take a 'greece like' event to make real change in the system.


----------



## Boss (Aug 9, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Like I said, you don't have to convince me.  It's the public you have to convince.
> 
> And you know the people on food stamps and welfare are going to scream bloody murder.  You know they will, because you are taking away a source of income.
> 
> ...



Oh, you are right.. it wouldn't be easy. None of this is going to be easy. We've got to cut spending by $1.5 trillion per year. We have to either find a way to do that or we will become Greece. It's not a scare tactic, I am not trying to be over-dramatic, we WILL become Greece. Only difference being our size. 

The MAIN problem we have is that about 47% of our country are devout Socialists who WANT our economy to tank! They WANT us to turn into Greece! This means Government control on everything. It's the ultimate objective to drive us into Socialism.


----------



## Boss (Aug 9, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Yes, to you and me, this is an obvious solution. Give people MREs, and let them choose to take it or leave it.



Well it doesn't have to be MREs, per say. That was just an illustration. We have an abundance of surplus food and we can package it any kind of way to fit whatever need. But something along the lines of a monthly "care package" was more what I meant. We can do something like that and feed the needy rather efficiently if we use our resources.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 9, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...




I am glad no one is going hungry  That is a awesome thing!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 9, 2015)

We have GOT TO INCREASE spending on infrastructure, science, and education. We have got to cut spending on nation building in the middle east and bank bail-outs!


----------



## Boss (Aug 9, 2015)

Matthew said:


> We have GOT TO INCREASE spending on infrastructure, science, and education. We have got to cut spending on nation building in the middle east and bank bail-outs!



We can't increase anything.. we have to cut spending... what part of that are you not getting? The only "infrastructure" the Federal government should be spending on is the US Highway and Interstate system and a wall on our southern border. The remainder needs to come from state, county and community government like it always has and as the Constitution outlines it should be done. 

Science and education are important but they don't come ahead of financial stability... we lose that and science or education doesn't matter. 

I don't want to "nation build" either. We have to protect our interests and security. The world is a BAD BAD place with BAD BAD people who want to do us harm. We need the ability to respond and respond forcefully. We have no choice on most of this, we have signed treaties with our allies and we have to honor those. 

And I'll go on record here and now.. I have NEVER supported a single dime of our tax dollars being used to "bail out" any goddamn thing... EVER!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 9, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^ Amen to that. And then next time if there is one for them, they will remember to spend their money more wisely.
> ...



Maybe not.  Remember that Obama's stimulus bill of 2009 increased food stamp benefits, and then that boost was subsequently allowed to expire in 2013 due to record numbers of applicants.

Even leftist pie-in-the-sky welfare schemes get hit with cold splashes of reality sometimes.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 9, 2015)

Matthew said:


> We have GOT TO INCREASE spending on infrastructure, science, and education. We have got to cut spending on nation building in the middle east and bank bail-outs!



Or we could cut spending on things the federal government has no business doing, and NOT increase spending on OTHER things the federal government has no business doing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > We have GOT TO INCREASE spending on infrastructure, science, and education. We have got to cut spending on nation building in the middle east and bank bail-outs!
> ...



And FYI, the states share in the expense of maintaining the segments of the Interstates and US highways that run through their areas.



Boss said:


> Science and education are important but they don't come ahead of financial stability... we lose that and science or education doesn't matter.
> 
> I don't want to "nation build" either. We have to protect our interests and security. The world is a BAD BAD place with BAD BAD people who want to do us harm. We need the ability to respond and respond forcefully. We have no choice on most of this, we have signed treaties with our allies and we have to honor those.
> 
> And I'll go on record here and now.. I have NEVER supported a single dime of our tax dollars being used to "bail out" any goddamn thing... EVER!



With you on the bailouts.


----------



## BlueGin (Aug 9, 2015)

Matthew said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...



Going hungry? No. Getting too much and the system is being abused. Yes.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 9, 2015)

Matthew said:


> We have GOT TO INCREASE spending on infrastructure, science, and education. We have got to cut spending on nation building in the middle east and bank bail-outs!



We "have GOT TO"?  Why?  Because you like spending other people's money?


----------



## BlueGin (Aug 9, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



And as an aside. It gets pretty bad when a person works for a corporation making 18.00/hr owns two houses...Rents one out to the government for HUD ( guaranteed income from the government). And then still apparently collects WIC and SNAP because her husband was illegal.

And the progressives apparently are fine with this system abuse.

Go figure


----------



## Camp (Aug 9, 2015)

Koch says we should stop handing out corporate welfare on Wall Street. Some other folks think it would be best if we stop feeding poor folks sliced beef and kids pop corn shrimp. I agree with the billionaire on this one.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> Koch says we should stop handing out corporate welfare on Wall Street. Some other folks think it would be best if we stop feeding poor folks sliced beef and kids pop corn shrimp. I agree with the billionaire on this one.



I think we should stop handing out taxpayer dollars, period.

I realize that you desperately want to believe that conservatives LOVE giving away tax money to businesses, but we're really not obligated to defend positions you _imagine _that we hold and project onto us.


----------



## Camp (Aug 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Koch says we should stop handing out corporate welfare on Wall Street. Some other folks think it would be best if we stop feeding poor folks sliced beef and kids pop corn shrimp. I agree with the billionaire on this one.
> ...



It isn't just my position. You guys who run away from admitting to huge corporate welfare give away programs now have to contend with a top conservative billionaire openly admitting to it's existence, describing and explaining it in detail and warning about how it is bankrupting the economy. His name is Charles Koch. He is one of the brothers that financed the creation of the Tea Party movement and a leading conservative spokesperson. 

bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-02/koch-calls-for-end-to-corporate-welfare-for-wall-street

The story is only a week old. You may not be aware of the sea change taking place.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 9, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...


If I knew about it they would not be getting any assistance..But I like fairy tales...


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Koch says we should stop handing out corporate welfare on Wall Street. Some other folks think it would be best if we stop feeding poor folks sliced beef and kids pop corn shrimp. I agree with the billionaire on this one.
> ...


We certainly know that conservatives only use their religion as a crutch to hold up their character...


----------



## Camp (Aug 9, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Ya, sounds like a fairy tale. In my state it could be solved with a toll free anonymous phone call.


----------



## BlueGin (Aug 9, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Food stamp fraud rampant GAO report Fox News


----------



## BlueGin (Aug 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...


Food stamp fraud increasingly sophisticated despite reports of drop in cases Fox News


----------



## Camp (Aug 9, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...


Well worth the read. The article makes it clear that individual states are responsible for enforcement and some states are not keep up with their responsibilities. They are taking the extra cash from the feds for increased benefits but not investing anything in enforcement. In Texas they won't even investigate unless the fraud amount is at least $5,000. In Tennessee the number is $100. So in Texas you can feel pretty secure that if you are only stealing a few thousand dollars and don't hit that $5,000 dollar limit, no one is even going to bother asking questions about you and your thievery. 
The article makes clear it is not the fed's, the amounts of the benefits or the people who need the benefits that are at fault. The blame lies squarely on the states who are failing to enforce the laws designed to safeguard against misuse.


----------



## BlueGin (Aug 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



The dollar value is the same for credit card fraud. If under 5000 they will not investigate.

At any rate... Doesn't matter who is at fault for lax investigation.  It's still theft and abuse of tax payer money.


----------



## Camp (Aug 9, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...


It's a big deal. A very big deal. In Tennessee if a single working mom with a two kids is collecting $200 per month after her pay adjustment is made, and her boyfriend or baby daddy moves into the house her $200 per month in SNAP should cease. If someone tells on her or somehow the state of Tennessee finds out about this possible fraud, an investigation will be implements and the people committing the fraud may come to justice. That justice will prevent others from committing the same fraud.
Now take that case to Texas. The exact same situation would not even be enough to start an investigation. Two hundred a month doesn't come close to the $5,000 required to start the investigation. Might as well just tell baby daddy he can live in the house and eat babies food. Doesn't even have to be daddy. Any multiple combination of boyfriends can come in and gobble up the kids food. Texas doesn't care. 
I don't know about you, but if given a choice about where to send my tax money to assist hungry kids I want mine going to Tennessee. Fuck Texas.


----------



## BlueGin (Aug 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



And? What does that have to do with fraud in general? Since it apparently
rampant in Washington, Wisconsin and Michigan ( to name three)?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 9, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



We certainly know that leftists hate religion because it points out that they have no character at all.


----------



## Boss (Aug 9, 2015)

Camp said:


> It isn't just my position. You guys who run away from admitting to huge corporate welfare give away programs now have to contend with a top conservative billionaire openly admitting to it's existence, describing and explaining it in detail and warning about how it is bankrupting the economy. His name is Charles Koch. He is one of the brothers that financed the creation of the Tea Party movement and a leading conservative spokesperson.



You will note, it is the universal position of every CONSERVATIVE in the country to eliminate "crony corporatism" and restore true free market capitalism. The politicians who are in bed with the crony corporatists are Hillary and Jeb. The Liberal and Republican Elite are OWNED by the corporatists.


----------



## Camp (Aug 9, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...


It means state enforcement must be directly determined by benefit funding because states can not be trusted to finance and enforce proper use of federal funds. They have to be prodded into fulfilling their roles as agreed upon when they accepted the funds to help their citizens to start with. Determine the states with the best enforcement records and least amount of fraud and make all states follow those standards or risk the lose of federal assistance being given to the state for implementation.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 9, 2015)

Matthew said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...



I wish people like you, that support this crap, were the only ones who had to pay for it.  Suddenly, you wouldn't be so much in favor.

The problem with leftist ignorance and stupidity, is that it punishes everyone, not just the morons pushing it.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 11, 2015)

Matthew said:


> We have GOT TO INCREASE spending on infrastructure, science, and education. We have got to cut spending on nation building in the middle east and bank bail-outs!



We've covered this.    Greece spent billions on infrastructure, and ruined their entire economy.  China has done the same, and although the economy isn't wrecked like Greece, it's hit a slump.   Entire cities built, and no one lives there.  Japan has dumped billions into infrastructure, and their economy is still in a now 20 year slump.

Infrastructure is not an automatic benefit to the economy, and clearly that's confirmed by that massive $800 Billion dollar stimulus bill we passed in 2009, and yet here we are still whining about the economy and infrastructure.

If infrastructure was the cure-all you morons claim it is, then why didn't you cure all when you had both houses of congress, and the presidency?    We passed your dumb 'borrow to our future bankruptcy' bill.... why didn't you spend it on infrastructure if that was so important?

And education.... we already spend more on education than anyone else.   Our students are dumber than countries that spend a fraction on education than we do.     Clearly you "blow money on education forever" plan has not worked.  It's insanity to continue the same policies we've had for the last 30 years, and think it will magically make it better this time.

Lastly, we spend too much on science as it is, which is why so much science is absolute trash.

There are several key problems with government funded science.

First, government science grants keep professors out of the class room.   There is epidemic of student teachers, teachings classes, while the professor is off doing research on grant money.

Second, some professors are not even doing the research either.   Some of them spend all their time just writing grants.

Grant Writer Salary Indeed.com

Look at this?   We now have "Grant Writer" as a permanent full time position.   We have professional "grant writers" who do not teach, or do research.   All they do, is figure out how to suck more "science money" out of the government, and a professional grant writer can earn $70,000 just writing grants.   That's their whole job.

Ridiculous!   And you think science money is a fix for what again?   All it's fixed, is giving people a job to do nothing but write grants, a middle class income while producing nothing, on the backs of working people, you demand pay more taxes.  Brilliant....

And even the science that is done, is bad science.  Even fabricated science.

Independent labs to verify high-profile papers Nature News Comment

There is now a push to test scientific research for validity.   Why?  Because tons of science today isn't true.  They make it up, and publish it.

Why do they do this?   Because grant money is limited, and in order to keep the grant, you have to show results.   So if you are in the middle of a project, and the grant money runs out... how do you keep your research going?   Well you write up a paper, apply for a grant, and 'make up' that you found something justifying your grant research.

How does this pass peer-review?    Guess what... all of your 'peer' are guys just like you, trying to justify getting their grant money.   You call my paper good... and I'll call your paper good... and we'll both get our government funded scientific research grants.

Fake peer review Scientific journals publish fraudulent plagiarized or nonsense papers.

They are all doing this.    Because that's how they get more grant money from the government, so they can stay out of the class room teaching students, and in their private office, letting student teachers and student researchers do the work.

Well done leftists.... good work.  Screwing over science and students, and working tax payers, all at the exact same time.

*Another example, I just came across.   Medical science published.  Read the PDF at the bottom. *

The article above in Nature, listed this example.  This is sickening, and yet I've heard enough other stories, it's not the least bit surprising.

Why A Fake Article Titled Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs Was Accepted By 17 Medical Journals Fast Company Business Innovation

17 different medical journals published this article "Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs".   It starts off having a decent abstract, and by the end, he wrote just jibberish.

5.  Conclusion
Abilities forfeited situation extremely my to he resembled. Old had conviction discretion understood put principles you.  Match means keeps round one her quick.​
17 Medical journals published that.

This is modern American science today, thanks to your government intervention.

You say, why the heck would that be caused by government funding?    This was an example to show how easy it is to have a 'peer-reviewed' crap published in scientific journals.  That was jibberish, most are not 'jibberish', but that are no less made up and wrong. 

Why do 'scientists' do this?   Because then they can have their grant writer, put into the grant, that their research resulted in an article published in a peer-reviewed journal.   Which is completely accurate and true.   Thus, the grant needs to be renewed or extended, to continue their oh-so-important research.   After all, they are getting results....   they have an article in a peer-reviewed journal.


----------



## xdangerousxdavex (Aug 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Your middle class isn't getting more wealthy. They're losing ground. Only the wealthy are getting wealthier.
> ...








You won't believe these pies. I don't believe too, but I don't believe yours because there are no independent sources of information. The only truth I know is top 1% get richer and others get poorer. Every day.


----------



## Boss (Aug 18, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> You won't believe these pies. I don't believe too, but I don't believe yours because there are no independent sources of information. The only truth I know is top 1% get richer and others get poorer. Every day.



Well, the US Census Bureau is hardly a "biased" source of info. If we can't trust their data then we're spending an awful lot of taxpayer dollars gathering it. 

You have been brainwashed with propaganda. You should be interested to know, it's the same propaganda espoused by Mao which sparked "the people's revolution" in China. Playing off the ignorance and stupidity of people who are frustrated with failed socialist policies. 

There is no system which has ever existed or ever can exist where there is not a Top 1%. Even in a pure Communist, Totalitarian hard line system devoid of any capitalism. In those cases, the Top 1% are also your rulers. The only difference is, the less free enterprise and free market capitalism you have, the less change there is among those who belong to the Top 1%. 

The Top 1% always get richer faster in a free market system because they generally are better at making money. Another thing that is great about freedom and free enterprise systems, the people aren't relegated to "class" their entire lives. We are free to move from one class to another, from poor to middle, from middle to wealthy, back to middle, etc. Very FEW people live their entire lives in one "class" here... that was often the case in 19th century Europe and Asia, when Socialism and Maoism arose. That's why all your liberal socialist arguments are geared around "working class" or "middle class" ...because back when your ideology was created that was the plight of life... you were born into your class and remained there all your life. 

I tell people all the time, if the poor aren't getting wealthy as fast as the wealthy, maybe they should be something besides poor? If the "worker" doesn't like his low wages, be something besides a "worker" and make more! No one is stopping you!


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 21, 2015)

Camp said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Yeah dude....    that's part of the problem.     The Federal Government is an expert at demanding other people cover their wastes of government money.     For example, they demand to increase Medicare and Medicaid.... right?   But what many people don't know, is that they only cover a percentage of that cost.   The rest they require the states to pay.  And Medicare/Medicaid fraud?   That's up to the states to stop.

And the states have no choice but to take the money and fund the program, or they lose all the money, and then people scream that the state cut their health care.

It's a lose lose for the states, and a win win for the Federal Government.   Then when there is fraud.... they blame the states.

The whole point, which I think was made perfectly here... is that the system encourages fraud.   The system inherently lends itself to fraud.   Not that much different than the system that led Greece to a catastrophe.

This is why we on the right, are against the system to begin with.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 21, 2015)

The biggest abuse is by providers of welfare services, not the individuals on welfare.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 21, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



What do you mean we won't believe them?   Anyone who knows anything about the rich, knows what you see in those pie charts is both expected, and natural.    Very very few of the rich have tons and tons of raw cash.   Very few.  When you read in the papers that so-and-so is a billionaire, people get this freak idea that they have billions of 'dollars' in money.

Take Warren Buffet for example.  Whenever Buffet calls for increased taxes, and all the leftists run around screaming that Buffet says we should increase taxes on the rich.... I laugh.    Buffet doesn't earn that much "money".  His yearly salary is only $100,000 a year.   You could raise the top marginal rate, or even the second marginal rate, to 99%, and Buffet would never pay an additional penny to the government.

Buffet, like the vast majority of the top 1% in America, only collect a fraction of their income in 'money'.    The rest of it, is all equity in their respective businesses.

The owner of the company I work for currently, he started off as an engineer.  Worked his way up.  Married, had a family, bought a home.   Then he did something crazy.  He didn't blow all his money on crap.  Instead he sunk all his spare cash into his home.   But they he did something even more crazy.   When the business started to fail, he mortgaged his home, and bought the business.  Then he turned the business around.

Today he's a small business owner.  Only 20 employees, but he's in that 1% pie.  The vast majority of his wealth, is the value of the business he owns.   Why you people think that's bad, is beyond me.
*
Moreover, your claim that the rich get rich, while the poor get poorer.... is just flat out false.*

There is no measurement where you can claim the poor, are getting poorer.   Rich getting richer?   Sure.   Again, this is natural and expected.   The rich 'invest' their money.  Investments give a return... or no one would invest in them.

Now do some people become poor?  Sure.   It's called wasting money.   I'll give you an example.

There was a lady in Canada that won $10 Million.   She blew it all.  Cars, bling bling, parties, fancy living.  She's now broke.  Doesn't even have a car.  Rides the bus to an hourly job.

Compare that to Steve Jobs.  Steve Jobs got $10 Million too.  He used that to purchase a small little business called "Pixar".   And years later sold it for $10 Billion.

The reason the rich are rich, is because they invest.  The result most poor, are poor, is because they blow it.

And it's not just Steve Jobs and people like him.   Phil Robertson was a drunk.   He started whittling wooden duck callers.   Then he started selling them.  Fast forward a dozen years, and he's the owner of a multi-million dollar company, and has his own TV show.

He was poor.... but he invested.... now he's rich.

*And even if you exclude the people who advance from being in the lowest income bracket.
Again, as I said, the poor are not getting poorer.*

The poorest people in our country, live a higher standard of living than most of the people on the planet.    You go to Africa, and you'll see poor.

In fact, most poor have a higher standard of living than the middle class in most of Europe.

They have cars, TVs, Cable TV, Internet, Microwaves, Cell phones, Smart Phones, and the obesity rate is higher with the poor, than the middle class.

They are not getting poorer.   THey are getting richer.   As rich as the wealthy?  Of course not.  But they have a much higher standard of living than the poor of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and even the 80s.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 22, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> The biggest abuse is by providers of welfare services, not the individuals on welfare.



Example?


----------



## bertramhall (Aug 22, 2015)

I agree with cheeps, energy drinks and cookies. But people need protein to be healthy. What`s the problem in letting them buy a good steak or seafood for dinner? I think that health worth it.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 22, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest abuse is by providers of welfare services, not the individuals on welfare.
> ...


*The True Face of Medicare Fraud*
A $712 million bust, the biggest in U.S. history, shows that the people most likely to bilk the system are doctors and medical providers, not “welfare queens.”The Real Medicare Fraudsters Aren't 'Welfare Queens'


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 22, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



I see.    Well, that is true, but the problem is you are ignoring the reason.

*First off, government has every reason to encourage fraud, and little incentive to stop it.*   If they start cutting people off, with 52 Million enrollees, it's unavoidable that at some point, someone who isn't committing fraud will be cut.  When that happens, whoever the opposition is, will end up skewering whoever is in power over it.

When you look at the last three presidents, which one has been skewered over Medicare fraud?  None.  Yet fraud was a massive since the 90s at least.

Government, by it's very nature, is geared towards fraud and milking the system.   This is why we're against government involvement as much as possible.  In the case of health care, at all.

*Second, the way that medicare works, makes it nearly impossible for medicare providers to exist, without defrauding the system.*   It's pretty easy to scream about health care providers committing fraud, but then ignore the reasons why.

As we have said many times in the past, Medicare and more so Medicaid, both pay LESS than the cost of providing treatment.   When you are being paid $100, for treatment which costs $150, how do you survive?   By adding on massive additional services.   We did another scan, which was $50, even if it never happened.

This is yet another reason why government has every incentive to let fraud continue, and no incentive to stop it.   If the government actually cracked down on fraud, thousands of health care providers, would stop servicing Medicare patients.   Then opposition in the government would skewer the administration.

*Lastly, it's questionable how much of the fraud is due exclusively to the doctor, and how much is with the patient. *   I had a co-worker who openly told me he was collecting pills from the doctor, and selling them.

Years ago he had an accident, and had back pain, which he was taking Oxycontin.    But over a couple of years, the back pain went away, but he kept going to the doctor and getting the pills, on Medicare, so he could sell them.

The doctor knew, but it was a great way to get paid by medicare for doing nothing.    Of course if the patient had refused to take anymore, that would have ended it.   The patient has to be in on it, for the scam to work.

My main point again, is that this still leads back to government being the key problem.


----------



## Dragonlady (Aug 22, 2015)

What a chickenshit response.  That's like saying "If banks didn't exist, there'd be no bank robbers. So let's blame the banks". 

If not for Medicaid, how many of your nation's sick would get regular medical care?  You already have the lowest population service rate in the developed work. 

Before Obamacare, 45,000 Americans died each year because they couldn't afford healthcare.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 23, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> What a chickenshit response.  That's like saying "If banks didn't exist, there'd be no bank robbers. So let's blame the banks".
> 
> If not for Medicaid, how many of your nation's sick would get regular medical care?  You already have the lowest population service rate in the developed work.
> 
> Before Obamacare, 45,000 Americans died each year because they couldn't afford healthcare.


Bullshit.  Those 45k americans died cause they didn't want to buy expensive healthcare driven UP BY YOU SOCIALIST PIECE OF SHIT BASTARDS or receive free healthcare at the free clinic or get on medicaid you dumb shit.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 23, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> What a chickenshit response.  That's like saying "If banks didn't exist, there'd be no bank robbers. So let's blame the banks".
> 
> If not for Medicaid, how many of your nation's sick would get regular medical care?  You already have the lowest population service rate in the developed work.
> 
> Before Obamacare, 45,000 Americans died each year because they couldn't afford healthcare.



Prove it.   You show me one person, a specific individual, who couldn't get Obama care, and thus was refused any treatment at a hospital.   You people just make up lies, and that's the basis for your whole ideology.  Lying-Left.   The party of liars.   All of you.  Every single one.  This is why Clinton has so much support from your group of liars.  The Clintons lie as much as all of you do.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 23, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > What a chickenshit response.  That's like saying "If banks didn't exist, there'd be no bank robbers. So let's blame the banks".
> ...


I do not support any Clinton, evidently you are not worth discussing the issue with.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 23, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Are you so dumb, you can't even read who I was responding too?    Agreed.  Stop talking.  You are not worth discussing the issue with, when you can't even read the post.


----------



## Dragonlady (Aug 23, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > What a chickenshit response.  That's like saying "If banks didn't exist, there'd be no bank robbers. So let's blame the banks".
> ...



Another knee jerk response without reading the post. My post specifically said "Before Obamacare, 45,000 people died each year because they could not afford health care".  That's not a lie. I don't know what those figures are today. 

That's not a lie, that's a fact that even the GOP acknowledged to be true. 

You go on about waiting lists for treatment in Canada and the UK but more people die in the US for lack of insurance than die in single payer countries waiting for care.


----------



## Meathead (Aug 23, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Idiot, how can you possibly come up with a statistic like that?


----------



## Boss (Aug 23, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Before Obamacare, 45,000 people died each year because they could not afford health care...



And today, 45,000,000 people can't get health care insurance. ...THANKS OBAMA!


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 23, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



No sorry, you are just a liar.   You are a LYING leftist.     I know exactly what you said.   45,000 people died because they could not afford health care.   NAME ONE.      It is a lie.  You are a liar.  Flat out, you are a typical, Clintonesk lying pile of putrid trash.

Just keep lying.  Lie over and over, and I'll keep calling you the lying scum sucking bottom feeder that you are.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 23, 2015)

Meathead said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



It's not entirely her fault.   Some scum sucking left-wing think tank, made up a bunch of estimates, used those estimates, to build some educated guesses, that based on assumptions, such and such number of people die every year from lack of ***INSURANCE***.

The problem with these mindless lying idiots is that it is ILLEGAL FOR A HOSPITAL TO NOT TREAT SOMEONE.

But that doesn't stop these lying fools from spewing their puked up sewage, over and over.

I HAVE BEEN TO A HOSPITAL WHEN I DID NOT HAVE INSURANCE.... I still got treated DragonLiar!


----------



## Boss (Aug 24, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



YES!  ...I meant to ask DrugdupLady if we can interview the family and friends of these unfortunate 45k dead people... We need to know why no one bothered to inform them about indigent care laws or Medicaid. Seems like they would have... If I had a sick friend who didn't have insurance, I'd let them know about this before they died.


----------



## Dragonlady (Aug 24, 2015)

Here is the 2009 Harvard Study which established that number:

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 24, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...




i got two heart surgeries without insurance 

leftards need to lie 

to sell their utopia


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 24, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


shit in one hand wish it was in the other.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 24, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Here is the 2009 Harvard Study which established that number:
> 
> New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage


These people don't care about it, they have attend church..


----------



## Boss (Aug 24, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Here is the 2009 Harvard Study which established that number:
> 
> New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage



Again... Is there any way for us to interview the families and friends of these unfortunate people?  Where is MSNBC and Katie Courik? Where is Oprah and Geraldo? Someone needs to find out what was going on with these poor people who died... did their friends and family intentionally withhold public information from them?  Were they being held captive against their will or something? Maybe they were part of some kind of cult who didn't believe in modern medicine?  Something has to be explained here and it isn't being explained... How is it that 45k Americans died without knowing they had access to health care in every hospital in the country?


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 24, 2015)

Dragonlady said:


> Here is the 2009 Harvard Study which established that number:
> 
> New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage



Again, you left wing lying, mindless lemming......   NAME ONE PERSON.   NAME THEM!

You can't.   Nor does that research paper.    I've read the Harvard study.  It's crap.   Estimates.  Based on... Estimates.   That's all it is.

They can't name a single person who died because of lack of treatment.  Not one.

I personally have been to the hospital without insurance, and I still got treated.   You people just flat out lie.  It's a lie.  Period.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 24, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the 2009 Harvard Study which established that number:
> ...



Ironic ignorance, given how many health care providers were created by people of faith.

Riverside Methodist Hospital | Columbus, Ohio | OhioHealth
Riverside Methodist Hospital....  Methodist.....

History | Mount Carmel Health
Mount Carmel created by Mother M. Angela and Sister M. Rufina Dunn, of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Cross of Notre Dame.

St. Rita's Medical Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Started in 1918 by Sisters of Mercy

About Lutheran Hospital
Lutheran

Bethesda North Hospital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bethesda.... do you know where that name comes from?   John 5:2 in the Bible. 

About Good Samaritan Hospital Dayton
Good Samaritan Hospital.   I assume you know Good Samaritan comes from Luke 10:25

This isn't a list of just 5 hospitals.   That's 5 GROUPS of hospitals.  There are dozens of Lutheran, dozens of Catholic, dozens of Methodists, dozens of non-denominational Bethesda and Good Samaritan hospitals all across this country, and millions world wide.

All only because of people of faith.

Quite frankly if it wasn't for people of Faith, you wouldn't have any health care system to complain about not getting free.

Oh, and may I mention also that we haven't even attempted to cover the millions, if not billions of dollars that are donated to hospitals by people of Faith.

Even those public hospitals.... if it wasn't for people of faith donating to them, they would barely exist.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 24, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...



Yeah, I knew a guy that got cancer.  Zero insurance, zero money.   He went to the hospital, and they had him on full treatment.

You may not get reconstructive surgery if you have a mastectomy, but you will most certainly get the mastectomy.

The idea that people without insurance, are just kicked to the curb, and left for dead, is just absolute lying trash, and this DragonLiar knows it.   I know she knows it, because we've talked about this before.

They just make broad assumptions, and base estimates on their assumptions, and then make up a number of people who would have died.

_Leftist-  "Well, he would have gone to the doctor, and the doctor would have know to give him this test, and the cancer would have been discovered 6 years ago, and they would have given him "more" treatment, and then he would have survived it."_

There is not the slightest bit of evidence to support any of those assumptions.   And they knew it.  That's why the report say it is "ESTIMATED" that a bunch of people *MAY* not have died.

But of course the media (which no leftist actually reads the report, they only cite the media outlet), intentionally leaves off the estimates and assumptions, and just says "45,000 people die every year!", because the media knows that the left-wing lemmings are both liars themselves, and completely and utterly DUMB AS ROCKS, and will blindly repeat their lies OVER AND OVER.

The left-wing, is the party of Clintons.  They are all liars.  All of them.  Dishonest scum, each and every single one.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 24, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


Moonglow's a communist from Russia.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 24, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


And that's how the democrats like their politicians... lying piece of shit scum.  Otherwise they don't get their loot.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 25, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...



*They are all liars. All of them. Dishonest scum*

from what i see here that is almost certainly the case


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


I do the goosestep two step...


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


How much do I get?


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 25, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


Your lying, again...


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 25, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


So when I donate to Saint Jude's I will go to welfare heaven?


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 27, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



How would I know?    That's between you and G-d, not me.


----------



## Meathead (Aug 27, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> So when I donate to Saint Jude's I will go to welfare heaven?


Just take the bus to the nearest inner-city welfare office like everyone else.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 27, 2015)

In New York City of the 1930s and 40s there was no "welfare."   Public assistance was administered by the _Home Relief_ agency which maintained store-front branch offices in low-income neighborhoods.  People who needed assistance would visit one of those offices where they were interviewed and assigned to an Investigator who would verify and evaluate their needs and eligibility.  (Citizens only.)

If an individual had a rent problem it would be paid directly to the landlord.  Medicines were paid for with a special _Home Relief_ voucher that pharmacies were required to accept.  These _Home Relief_ store-front branches maintained a large stock of groceries and people in need of food were issued boxes and bags of nutritional items and baby foods.

My aunt worked for that agency.  Her title was "Counselor" but her job was going around to the various branches and teaching cooking classes to food parcel recipients.  The parcels contained mainly pasta, oatmeal, beans, canned and powdered sauces, etc.  Each approved family was issued one "meat voucher" per week which local butchers would honor for a specified amount.

The _Home Relief_ Investigator's duties included helping recipients to find jobs.

Compare that system with today's "welfare" system and it's obvious why public assistance rolls are so bloated.  If one manages to qualify for assistance a monthly check arrives in the mail and one rarely sees an investigator.  Food Stamps and other benefits are extras.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 27, 2015)

Meathead said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > So when I donate to Saint Jude's I will go to welfare heaven?
> ...


I live 60 miles from a bus...


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 27, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Which God?


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 28, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Whatever 'god' you believe in.   Of course, I believe there is only one G-d, the G-d of the Bible, which will have you stand before the great white throne judgement, and you will have to give an account of how you lived your life, just like I will.

But if you believe something else, like the 'god' of the big bang, or whatever fruity beliefs there are out there..... ok...  then you answer to your 'god'.

But it's not up to me to determine your fate regardless of 'which god'.   I'm not G-d dude.  What do you expect me to say?   Are you asking what the Bible says?   I can tell you what the book says, if you want to know.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 29, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Andylusion said:
> ...


Well at least the Christians have their God that is Jeebus, The Jews, not so much...You seem to think that some how being judged is a scary event to make people worry about nothing....yet your God can't destroy Satan, like he did the humans at one time....


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 29, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Thank god for ignore.


----------



## Andylusion (Aug 29, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Being judged is the scary event I'm worried about.    That's why I believe in Jesus.

Can't destroy Satan?  Just because I haven't played the flute yet, doesn't mean I am incapable of it.     Revelations says that Satan's time is coming in the future.

Pagans have such odd views of Christianity.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 30, 2015)

xdangerousxdavex said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



I devoutly hope I'm the first to say, "So what?"


----------



## LogikAndReazon (Aug 30, 2015)

Absurd..... Just ban ebt cards period.


----------



## RKMBrown (Aug 31, 2015)

LogikAndReazon said:


> Absurd..... Just ban ebt cards period.


I say let the libtards have their ebt cards.. and let them fund themselves with libtard donations.  Leave us more intelligent people alone, we have better uses for our income than pissing it away on handout programs.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 2, 2015)

LogikAndReazon said:


> Absurd..... Just ban ebt cards period.



I'm a little unclear as to what you're trying to accomplish in this suggestion.


----------

