Feeding animals causes dependency..46 million americans on food stamps

[The T]

Class warfare against the working class. It goes both ways you know?

Pitting the working class against the poor is a well worn tactic of the money interests...

...who now bankroll the GOP, btw.

Gee, when 'the poor' do as well as 'the working class' without working, doesn't seem to me there has to be much 'pitting'...........

As the poor are used as useful tools to be played with at the whim of those they elect...as long as they keep electing them.

They need to wake up.

 

[bripat9643]

[
I dropped my public sector union membership last April, tired of them taking my money and giving it to assholes for election/reelection without my consent.

Ah, so contrary to the idiots around here, you aren't forced to join unions.

People are not forced to join unions. But in 'union shops' the person who doesn't will be blackballed by his coworkers.

Yes, actually, in non-right-to-work states people are forced to join unions. That's what union certification means.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Class warfare against the working class. It goes both ways you know?

Pitting the working class against the poor is a well worn tactic of the money interests...

...who now bankroll the GOP, btw.

Gee, when 'the poor' do as well as 'the working class' without working, doesn't seem to me there has to be much 'pitting'...........

That's how it works. You're a perfect example of why the GOP does it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ah, so contrary to the idiots around here, you aren't forced to join unions.

People are not forced to join unions. But in 'union shops' the person who doesn't will be blackballed by his coworkers.

Yes, actually, in non-right-to-work states people are forced to join unions. That's what union certification means.

You're lying. I'm in NY and we can opt out of union membership although the employer may still require you pay agency fees.

Keep your mouth shut on what you don't have a clue about. You'll look smarter.

 

[hortysir]

You're lying. I'm in NY and we can opt out of union membership although the employer may still require you pay agency fees.

Keep your mouth shut on what you don't have a clue about. You'll look smarter.

Yea.
That's smart.



That is, by far, the most retarded line of shit I've ever seen/heard.

How does one justify that?????

 

[The T]

You're lying. I'm in NY and we can opt out of union membership although the employer may still require you pay agency fees.

Keep your mouth shut on what you don't have a clue about. You'll look smarter.

Yea.
That's smart.



That is, by far, the most retarded line of shit I've ever seen/heard.

How does one justify that?????

Really...what's the difference what it's called?

 

[The T]

Ah, so contrary to the idiots around here, you aren't forced to join unions.

People are not forced to join unions. But in 'union shops' the person who doesn't will be blackballed by his coworkers.

Yes, actually, in non-right-to-work states people are forced to join unions. That's what union certification means.

And Obama and the Statists with Union Help will try to push 'Free Choice Act'...

 

[Foxfyre]

OK, so here's a question for you. I can't supply the link because it was a local story, not CNN, and I can't find it.

There is a local woman who does a lot of 'couponing', so much so that she has a room full of food and personal items stacked on shelves like a store. She said certain shelves she got it all for free and donates those items to people who need them. During the story she made a comment that she usually doesn't have to use all of her food stamps for the month, and sometimes doesn't use any, now that she is 'couponing.'

Should this woman still be getting food stamps? She is pulling in as much from her couponing as some people do from a job. That CAN be done. When my daughter was off after the baby was born she did a lot of that and you can combine store coupon, with a product company coupon for things already on sale, then coupons double from places that double them and almost everything you buy is free. If you also have a product code as wekk, you can actually get change back. She would take scripts to one pharmacy then have them transferred to the pharmacy that gives $25 for every script you transfer there and got about all their medicine for free. My daughter's husband has a good job, but they had been DINKS, so it was culture shock when the baby came along with all the concomitant expenses. She was and still is in a neighborhood coupon club, and an online one as well. But now she is working doesn't have the time she once did. She was never on food stamps.

Somehow it seem unfair for this local person who super coupons to be able to also draw food stamps. I saw how much money my daughter pulled in using this strategy. If this local woman on food stamps were pulling in the equivalent in money she would not get them. So what do you think?

Maybe she can start a business of her own instead of scamming the system?

She is definitely smart enough to be in business. I recall at the time of reading the article, has a huge following on FB and she gives 'lessons' in couponing. I really think she is scamming the system since her 'income' likely puts her out of being eligible for food stamps.

But then too, here we have the paradox. It is deemed compassionate to give food stamps to the poor so that they can buy more food.

But if the poor show any initiative to provide for themselves and improve their situation, they can be punished by losing the free stuff they were getting for being poor.

It seems to me that the free stuff creates dependency just because once we are getting free stuff, we resist going back to a system in which we have to pay for that stuff.

And the government not only is doling out lots of free stuff and thereby running the risk of creating dependency, but it exacerbates it by threatening to withhold the free stuff if somebody betters themselves.

Seems to me the most foolish of fools could see how the Federal government is gradually but surely creating a nation of dependents instead of the responsible, resourceful, innovative, creative, and productive population we had before the advent of so much free stuff.

 

[The T]

Maybe she can start a business of her own instead of scamming the system?

She is definitely smart enough to be in business. I recall at the time of reading the article, has a huge following on FB and she gives 'lessons' in couponing. I really think she is scamming the system since her 'income' likely puts her out of being eligible for food stamps.

But then too, here we have the paradox. It is deemed compassionate to give food stamps to the poor so that they can buy more food.

But if the poor show any initiative to provide for themselves and improve their situation, they can be punished by losing the free stuff they were getting for being poor.

It seems to me that the free stuff creates dependency just because once we are getting free stuff, we resist going back to a system in which we have to pay for that stuff.

And the government not only is doling out lots of free stuff and thereby running the risk of creating dependency, but it exacerbates it by threatening to withhold the free stuff if somebody betters themselves.

Seems to me the most foolish of fools could see how the Federal government is gradually but surely creating a nation of dependents instead of the responsible, resourceful, innovative, creative, and productive population we had before the advent of so much free stuff.

And the paradox is thatit isn't and never will be free...someone somewhere expended thier sweat equity to create what is being redistributed...and got paid in some manner for thier time...

Therefore the axiom of 'There are no free lunches' holds true.

 

[Foxfyre]

She is definitely smart enough to be in business. I recall at the time of reading the article, has a huge following on FB and she gives 'lessons' in couponing. I really think she is scamming the system since her 'income' likely puts her out of being eligible for food stamps.

But then too, here we have the paradox. It is deemed compassionate to give food stamps to the poor so that they can buy more food.

But if the poor show any initiative to provide for themselves and improve their situation, they can be punished by losing the free stuff they were getting for being poor.

It seems to me that the free stuff creates dependency just because once we are getting free stuff, we resist going back to a system in which we have to pay for that stuff.

And the government not only is doling out lots of free stuff and thereby running the risk of creating dependency, but it exacerbates it by threatening to withhold the free stuff if somebody betters themselves.

Seems to me the most foolish of fools could see how the Federal government is gradually but surely creating a nation of dependents instead of the responsible, resourceful, innovative, creative, and productive population we had before the advent of so much free stuff.

And the paradox is thatit isn't and never will be free...someone somewhere expended thier sweat equity to create what is being redistributed...and got paid in some manner for thier time...

Therefore the axiom of 'There are no free lunches' holds true.

Very true. And it is also true that the most ambitious and productive and self reliant eventually get tired of being the patsy for everybody else, the one who is supporting everybody else who aren't even doing their chores, much less contributing to the effort. And so it is human nature that the most ambitious and productive and self reliant will eventually stop being so ambitious and productive even to the point that they also have a hand out for the 'free stuff'.

And when there aren't enough productive people to provide the free stuff, it will be too late for those made dependent. The government will have control of everything and everybody and will tell everybody what they have to do to get the stuff that the government controls. And we will have lost the great nation that the Founders bought and gave us at great cost.

 

[Sunshine]

Maybe she can start a business of her own instead of scamming the system?

She is definitely smart enough to be in business. I recall at the time of reading the article, has a huge following on FB and she gives 'lessons' in couponing. I really think she is scamming the system since her 'income' likely puts her out of being eligible for food stamps.

But then too, here we have the paradox. It is deemed compassionate to give food stamps to the poor so that they can buy more food.

But if the poor show any initiative to provide for themselves and improve their situation, they can be punished by losing the free stuff they were getting for being poor.

It seems to me that the free stuff creates dependency just because once we are getting free stuff, we resist going back to a system in which we have to pay for that stuff.

And the government not only is doling out lots of free stuff and thereby running the risk of creating dependency, but it exacerbates it by threatening to withhold the free stuff if somebody betters themselves.

Seems to me the most foolish of fools could see how the Federal government is gradually but surely creating a nation of dependents instead of the responsible, resourceful, innovative, creative, and productive population we had before the advent of so much free stuff.

Yes, this is all true. BUT for anything that has 'criteria' the lines have to be drawn somewhere. And public assistance is just that public assistance - supposedly designed to provide a subsistance level of living until a person can get back on their feet, not to help someone'better themselves.' I mean, hey, it would help me better myself to get food stamps even though I make a good living. I would still be better off if someone dropped $300 - $400 into my coffers each month. The lines have to be drawn and respected. Public assistance is about survival and not about bettering one's self.

 

[Foxfyre]

She is definitely smart enough to be in business. I recall at the time of reading the article, has a huge following on FB and she gives 'lessons' in couponing. I really think she is scamming the system since her 'income' likely puts her out of being eligible for food stamps.

But then too, here we have the paradox. It is deemed compassionate to give food stamps to the poor so that they can buy more food.

But if the poor show any initiative to provide for themselves and improve their situation, they can be punished by losing the free stuff they were getting for being poor.

It seems to me that the free stuff creates dependency just because once we are getting free stuff, we resist going back to a system in which we have to pay for that stuff.

And the government not only is doling out lots of free stuff and thereby running the risk of creating dependency, but it exacerbates it by threatening to withhold the free stuff if somebody betters themselves.

Seems to me the most foolish of fools could see how the Federal government is gradually but surely creating a nation of dependents instead of the responsible, resourceful, innovative, creative, and productive population we had before the advent of so much free stuff.

Yes, this is all true. BUT for anything that has 'criteria' the lines have to be drawn somewhere. And public assistance is just that public assistance - supposedly designed to provide a subsistance level of living until a person can get back on their feet, not to help someone'better themselves.' I mean, hey, it would help me better myself to get food stamps even though I make a good living. I would still be better off if someone dropped $300 - $400 into my coffers each month. The lines have to be drawn and respected. Public assistance is about survival and not about bettering one's self.

But the point made is that by presuming that the person needs public assistance to survive, the government too often takes on the role of provider and thereby discourages the person to make any effort to provide for himself/herself and thereby better himself or herself.

Which is why many local charities are far more likely to provide the necessities for survival, but also are in a much better position to encourage or insist that the person aided do something in return for that aid or otherwise help himself/herself. The homeless of yesteryear were the hoboes who would rarely take handouts without working for them, but who were willing to work for them.

The Federal government is ill equipped to require work in return for food or whatever. The local systems are well equipped to encourage that. The Federal government should not be providing any form of benevolence or charity or free stuff of any kind. If they leave the responsibility (as well as more resources) at the local level, there is far less likelihood that they will unintentionally make a person addicted to dependency rather than provide a path for a person to become productive.

 

[Sunshine]

But then too, here we have the paradox. It is deemed compassionate to give food stamps to the poor so that they can buy more food.

But if the poor show any initiative to provide for themselves and improve their situation, they can be punished by losing the free stuff they were getting for being poor.

It seems to me that the free stuff creates dependency just because once we are getting free stuff, we resist going back to a system in which we have to pay for that stuff.

And the government not only is doling out lots of free stuff and thereby running the risk of creating dependency, but it exacerbates it by threatening to withhold the free stuff if somebody betters themselves.

Seems to me the most foolish of fools could see how the Federal government is gradually but surely creating a nation of dependents instead of the responsible, resourceful, innovative, creative, and productive population we had before the advent of so much free stuff.

Yes, this is all true. BUT for anything that has 'criteria' the lines have to be drawn somewhere. And public assistance is just that public assistance - supposedly designed to provide a subsistance level of living until a person can get back on their feet, not to help someone'better themselves.' I mean, hey, it would help me better myself to get food stamps even though I make a good living. I would still be better off if someone dropped $300 - $400 into my coffers each month. The lines have to be drawn and respected. Public assistance is about survival and not about bettering one's self.

But the point made is that by presuming that the person needs public assistance to survive, the government too often takes on the role of provider and thereby discourages the person to make any effort to provide for himself/herself and thereby better himself or herself.

Which is why many local charities are far more likely to provide the necessities for survival, but also are in a much better position to encourage or insist that the person aided do something in return for that aid or otherwise help himself/herself. The homeless of yesteryear were the hoboes who would rarely take handouts without working for them, but who were willing to work for them.

The Federal government is ill equipped to require work in return for food or whatever. The local systems are well equipped to encourage that. The Federal government should not be providing any form of benevolence or charity or free stuff of any kind. If they leave the responsibility (as well as more resources) at the local level, there is far less likelihood that they will unintentionally make a person addicted to dependency rather than provide a path for a person to become productive.

I agree.

I can say that most people do NOT know that there is some work required of those living in public housing. They are expected to all work to keep the grounds clean. I'm not saying it actually happens, but I do know that to be a stipulation for residing in public housing. Once I worked for a company that was diagonal to a public housing complex. The grounds of the complex were clean because someone was out there ever day picking up the paper. But a lot of the loose paper from there blew to the lawns of the surrounding businesses. Of course, that was the responsibility of the businesses to keep their own lawns clean even though they had not messed them up themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, this is all true. BUT for anything that has 'criteria' the lines have to be drawn somewhere. And public assistance is just that public assistance - supposedly designed to provide a subsistance level of living until a person can get back on their feet, not to help someone'better themselves.' I mean, hey, it would help me better myself to get food stamps even though I make a good living. I would still be better off if someone dropped $300 - $400 into my coffers each month. The lines have to be drawn and respected. Public assistance is about survival and not about bettering one's self.

But the point made is that by presuming that the person needs public assistance to survive, the government too often takes on the role of provider and thereby discourages the person to make any effort to provide for himself/herself and thereby better himself or herself.

Which is why many local charities are far more likely to provide the necessities for survival, but also are in a much better position to encourage or insist that the person aided do something in return for that aid or otherwise help himself/herself. The homeless of yesteryear were the hoboes who would rarely take handouts without working for them, but who were willing to work for them.

The Federal government is ill equipped to require work in return for food or whatever. The local systems are well equipped to encourage that. The Federal government should not be providing any form of benevolence or charity or free stuff of any kind. If they leave the responsibility (as well as more resources) at the local level, there is far less likelihood that they will unintentionally make a person addicted to dependency rather than provide a path for a person to become productive.

I agree.

I can say that most people do NOT know that there is some work required of those living in public housing. They are expected to all work to keep the grounds clean. I'm not saying it actually happens, but I do know that to be a stipulation for residing in public housing. Once I worked for a company that was diagonal to a public housing complex. The grounds of the complex were clean because someone was out there ever day picking up the paper. But a lot of the loose paper from there blew to the lawns of the surrounding businesses. Of course, that was the responsibility of the businesses to keep their own lawns clean even though they had not messed them up themselves.

I'm sure state or local subsidized housing may differ from state to state, but the responsibiities required at the federal level are pretty thin, and from what I have observed here and around the state, those responsibilities are not enforced all that much. The federal requirements are summarized here:
http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rd...A11957/0/Tenantsrightsandresponsibilities.pdf

You watch a new private apartment complex or new single family dwellings go in, and five years later most will still look as good as new or better. You watch a new public housing project go in, and you can almost see it deteriorate before your eyes. Neither freebies nor government management induces pride of ownership or respect for the investment.

Of course there are exceptions, but too often that is also the case with government low or no down payment mortgages. When you have a substantial down payment on your property, you are far more likely to maintain it and preserve its value and make your payments in order to protect your investment. If they have little or no investment in their property, they lose nothing if it is not maintained and they lose nothing if they default on the payments.

Government benevolence is far too often not the same thing as compassion.

 

[Sunshine]

But the point made is that by presuming that the person needs public assistance to survive, the government too often takes on the role of provider and thereby discourages the person to make any effort to provide for himself/herself and thereby better himself or herself.

Which is why many local charities are far more likely to provide the necessities for survival, but also are in a much better position to encourage or insist that the person aided do something in return for that aid or otherwise help himself/herself. The homeless of yesteryear were the hoboes who would rarely take handouts without working for them, but who were willing to work for them.

The Federal government is ill equipped to require work in return for food or whatever. The local systems are well equipped to encourage that. The Federal government should not be providing any form of benevolence or charity or free stuff of any kind. If they leave the responsibility (as well as more resources) at the local level, there is far less likelihood that they will unintentionally make a person addicted to dependency rather than provide a path for a person to become productive.

I agree.

I can say that most people do NOT know that there is some work required of those living in public housing. They are expected to all work to keep the grounds clean. I'm not saying it actually happens, but I do know that to be a stipulation for residing in public housing. Once I worked for a company that was diagonal to a public housing complex. The grounds of the complex were clean because someone was out there ever day picking up the paper. But a lot of the loose paper from there blew to the lawns of the surrounding businesses. Of course, that was the responsibility of the businesses to keep their own lawns clean even though they had not messed them up themselves.

I'm sure state or local subsidized housing may differ from state to state, but the responsibiities required at the federal level are pretty thin, and from what I have observed here and around the state, those responsibilities are not enforced all that much. The federal requirements are summarized here:
http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rd...A11957/0/Tenantsrightsandresponsibilities.pdf

You watch a new private apartment complex or new single family dwellings go in, and five years later most will still look as good as new or better. You watch a new public housing project go in, and you can almost see it deteriorate before your eyes. Neither freebies nor government management induces pride of ownership or respect for the investment.

Of course there are exceptions, but too often that is also the case with government low or no down payment mortgages. When you have a substantial down payment on your property, you are far more likely to maintain it and preserve its value and make your payments in order to protect your investment. If they have little or no investment in their property, they lose nothing if it is not maintained and they lose nothing if they default on the payments.

Government benevolence is far too often not the same thing as compassion.

I believe Section 8 housing is supposed to remedy this, but it really doesn't. I know of a person who lives in a $400K town home and there is a Section 8 family living next door. The woman doesn't work, but sends her children out to clean snow off cars in the parking lot in the winter, then demand money. She is always pestering the neighbors to give her wine, etc. And she doesn't follow the HOA rules about keeping trash out of sight. A person who has never had a work ethic will not get one by living next to a person who does have a work ethic!

 

[WithoutYour]

Thanks for the articulate comments. The Federal Government is "ill equipped" to provide customized solutions so compassion is customary. It is up to the individual to relieve the need for public assistance.

She is definitely smart enough to be in business. I recall at the time of reading the article, has a huge following on FB and she gives 'lessons' in couponing. I really think she is scamming the system since her 'income' likely puts her out of being eligible for food stamps.

But then too, here we have the paradox. It is deemed compassionate to give food stamps to the poor so that they can buy more food.

But if the poor show any initiative to provide for themselves and improve their situation, they can be punished by losing the free stuff they were getting for being poor.

It seems to me that the free stuff creates dependency just because once we are getting free stuff, we resist going back to a system in which we have to pay for that stuff.

And the government not only is doling out lots of free stuff and thereby running the risk of creating dependency, but it exacerbates it by threatening to withhold the free stuff if somebody betters themselves.

Seems to me the most foolish of fools could see how the Federal government is gradually but surely creating a nation of dependents instead of the responsible, resourceful, innovative, creative, and productive population we had before the advent of so much free stuff.

Yes, this is all true. BUT for anything that has 'criteria' the lines have to be drawn somewhere. And public assistance is just that public assistance - supposedly designed to provide a subsistance level of living until a person can get back on their feet, not to help someone'better themselves.' I mean, hey, it would help me better myself to get food stamps even though I make a good living. I would still be better off if someone dropped $300 - $400 into my coffers each month. The lines have to be drawn and respected. Public assistance is about survival and not about bettering one's self.

 

[HomeInspect]

I believe Section 8 housing is supposed to remedy this, but it really doesn't. I know of a person who lives in a $400K town home and there is a Section 8 family living next door. The woman doesn't work, but sends her children out to clean snow off cars in the parking lot in the winter, then demand money. She is always pestering the neighbors to give her wine, etc. And she doesn't follow the HOA rules about keeping trash out of sight. A person who has never had a work ethic will not get one by living next to a person who does have a work ethic!

And these people vote, and may just be the reason Obama gets re-elected

 

[gallantwarrior]

7 Reasons Why Liberals Are Incapable of Understanding The World - John Hawkins - Townhall Conservative Columnists

Even liberals who've accomplished a lot in their lives and have high IQs often say things on a regular basis that are stunningly, profoundly stupid and at odds with the way the world works. Modern liberalism has become so bereft of common sense and instinctually suicidal that America can only survive over the long haul by thwarting the liberal agenda. In fact, liberalism has become such a toxic and poisonous philosophy that most liberals wouldn't behave differently if their goal were to deliberately destroy the country. So, how does liberalism cause well-meaning, intelligent liberals to get this way? Well, it starts with...

1) Liberalism creates a feedback loop. It is usually impossible for a non-liberal to change a liberal's mind about political issues because liberalism works like so: only liberals are credible sources of information. How do you know someone's liberal? He espouses liberal doctrine. So, no matter how plausible what you say may be, it will be ignored if you're not a liberal and if you are a liberal, of course, you probably agree with liberal views. This sort of close-mindedness makes liberals nearly impervious to any information that might undermine their beliefs.

2) Liberals sources of information are ever present. Conservatives are regularly exposed to the liberal viewpoint whether they want to be or not. That's not necessarily so for liberals. Imagine the average day for liberals. They get up and read their local newspaper. It has a liberal viewpoint. They take their kids to school, where the teachers are liberal. Then they go to work, listen to NPR which has a liberal viewpoint on the way home, and then turn on the nightly news which also skews leftward. From there, they turn on TV and watch shows created by liberals that lean to the left, if they have any political viewpoint at all. Unless liberals actively seek out conservative viewpoints, which is unlikely, the only conservative arguments they're probably going to hear are going to be through the heavily distorted, poorly translated, deeply skeptical lens of other liberals.

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it's designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they're "protecting the environment" even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it's not what a program does in the real world; it's about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

4) Liberals are big believers in moral relativism. This spins them round and round because if the only thing that's wrong is saying that there's an absolute moral code, then you lose your ability to tell cause from effect, good from bad, and right from wrong. Taking being non-judgmental to the level that liberals do leaves them paralyzed, pondering "why they hate us" because they feel incapable of saying, “That's wrong," and doing something about it. If you're against firm standards and condemning immoral behavior, then your moral compass won’t work and you’ll also be for immorality, as well as societal and cultural decay by default.

5) Liberals tend to view people as parts of groups, not individuals. One of the prejudices of liberalism is that they see everyone as part of a group, not as an individual. This can lead to rather bizarre disparities when say, a man from a group that they consider to be powerless, impoverished victims becomes the leader of the free world -- and he's challenged by a group of lower middle class white people who've banded together because individually they're powerless. If you listen to the liberal rhetoric, you might think Barack Obama was a black Republican being surrounded by a KKK lynching party 100 years ago -- as opposed to the single most powerful man in America abusing the authority of his office to attack ordinary Tea Partiers who have the audacity to speak the truth to power for the good of their country.

6) Liberals take a dim view of personal responsibility. Who's at fault if a criminal commits a crime? The criminal or society? If someone creates a business and becomes a millionaire, is that the result of hard work and talent or luck? If you're dirt poor, starving, and haven't worked in 5 years, is that a personal failing or a failure of the state? Conservatives would tend to say the former in each case, while liberals would tend to say the latter. But when you disconnect what an individual does from the results that happen in his life, it's very difficult to understand cause and effect in people's lives.

7) Liberals give themselves far too much credit just for being liberal. To many liberals, all one needs to do to be wise, intelligent, compassionate, open minded, and sensitive is to BE LIBERAL. In other words, many of the good things about a person spring not from his actions, but from the ideology he holds. This has an obvious appeal. You can be a diehard misogynist, but plausibly call yourself a feminist, hate blacks, but accuse others of racism, have a subpar IQ and be an intellectual, give nothing to charity and be compassionate, etc., etc., and all you have to do is call yourself a liberal. It's a shortcut to virtue much like the corrupt old idea of religious indulgences. Why live a life of virtue when you could live a sinful life and buy your way into heaven? If you're a liberal, why actually live a life of virtue when you can merely call yourself a liberal and get credit for being virtuous, even when you've done nothing to earn it?

Absolutely spot on. Very clearly articulated description of liberals/progressives.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Furthermore

allowing one to keep more of their own money is NOT a handout

Unless of course, one believes that all money belongs to the gov't

If that is the case
then maybe we should do a cost benefit analysis of everyone and every company
in terms of cash movements to the gov't

Don't worry. It won't be too long before all your pay will be credited to an account held by the government, maybe in your name, maybe not. You will be provided those things that the government deems to be equal to that which they distribute to others in your assigned socio-economic class. Any funds in excess of what is deemed essential for your upkeep will be distributed to others who have less.

 

[uscitizen]

So the people who get welfare work for the government. Do tell what services they provide!

Many people who get food stamps work full time jobs. In fact US servicemen and their families have at times qualified for food stamps.

Which in itself speaks volumes about the politicians running this circus.

Yep us servicemen were on food stamps while republicans controlled congress and the presidency.
And while democrats controlled everything as well.