Food stamp purchases going ONLINE!!

[Conservative65]

Do you really thinks it's about the amount?

It's could be a penny and it would be one cent too much when it comes to forcing one to support another. If you think it's about the amount, that's another lesson you failed to learn.

I think you are mistaken. Income transfers are authorized in our Constitution and called taxes.

That same Constitution specifically delegates the uses of those taxes. I have yet to see social welfare as a delegated use.

it is called, the general welfare.

Not the same no matter how much you twist it.

The general welfare doesn't dictate that someone earning what they have should be forced to fund it for someone freeloader unwilling to do so.

How does that work for the common defense? Income transfers are income transfers. You don't get to choose, our legislators do. You simply get taxed.

As long as some of those pieces of shit decide to take from the contributors and give to takers like you that don't contribute you'll have something. Just remember that if it weren't for people like me, you'd have nothing.

 

[Conservative65]

SNAP should be limited to staple foods only. Bread, flour, beans, ground beef, chicken, milk, bulk yogurt...etc.

It damn sure shouldn't be used to buy sodas, candy bars, and chips.

When you give someone a birthday present of money, do you put limitations on what can be bought with the money?

That's a crewed up analogy, you cannot be so desperate, can you?

His use of that sad analogy shows he doesn't understand the difference between a gift given willingly by the giver and something taken by the government through a mandate.

 

[Conservative65]

It damn sure shouldn't be used to buy sodas, candy bars, and chips.

When you give someone a birthday present of money, do you put limitations on what can be bought with the money?

Not the same. If you think a gift given willfully and something handed to someone another group was forced to fund is the same, we need to have a lesson on that before we can have a lesson on why freeloaders shouldn't be able to buy chips, sodas, and candy bars with money someone else earned.

should we do the same for anyone getting paid from public funds?

Be more precise, sock.

any public employee or public servant, grasshopper.

Still can't grasp the difference revolves around whether you earn what you have or you are a freeloader and have it handed to you?

What you don't understand is that there are two groups in society. Those that earn what they have, whether it be in public or private employment, and pay the taxes that fund the handouts for the other group, the freeloaders that do nothing but take from society.

 

[Conservative65]

Not the same. If you think a gift given willfully and something handed to someone another group was forced to fund is the same, we need to have a lesson on that before we can have a lesson on why freeloaders shouldn't be able to buy chips, sodas, and candy bars with money someone else earned.

Did you miss that ten dollars the govt. stole from you?

Do you really thinks it's about the amount?

It's could be a penny and it would be one cent too much when it comes to forcing one to support another. If you think it's about the amount, that's another lesson you failed to learn.

Jesus will love you for it even more...

How did Jesus get into the picture? Why are you bringing religion into the conversation? Are you assuming that everybody is of the Christian faith?

Do you need faith to honor a good deed?

What we don't need is people like you deciding for anyone but yourself what constitutes a good deed. I don't think someone unwilling to do for him/herself deserves a handout. You apparently do. That being the case, YOU do it for them with your money and I'll do the same when I see a need that should be met.

 

[Conservative65]

Did you miss that ten dollars the govt. stole from you?

Do you really thinks it's about the amount?

It's could be a penny and it would be one cent too much when it comes to forcing one to support another. If you think it's about the amount, that's another lesson you failed to learn.

Jesus will love you for it even more...

How did Jesus get into the picture? Why are you bringing religion into the conversation? Are you assuming that everybody is of the Christian faith?

Do you need faith to honor a good deed?

A Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, helps.

Strange how all you handout supporters think it's your place to define fair and determine for anyone else when another person should get help. If you see someone you think deserves it, give them yours. I'll do the same. I won't tell you how to do yours and you keep your fucking hands out of my wallet.

 

[Conservative65]

Did you miss that ten dollars the govt. stole from you?

Do you really thinks it's about the amount?

It's could be a penny and it would be one cent too much when it comes to forcing one to support another. If you think it's about the amount, that's another lesson you failed to learn.

Jesus will love you for it even more...

How did Jesus get into the picture? Why are you bringing religion into the conversation? Are you assuming that everybody is of the Christian faith?

Do you need faith to honor a good deed?

I am not the one bringing religion into this. Good deed should come from inner conviction and not from any book.

While I'm not the one that brought religion into it, the one I follow teaches exactly how you say it should be done. It should come from an inner conviction. That's the way the book I believe in says it should be done not the mandate Moonglow seems to think it says.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is great news! All poor people should be given food stamps.

 

[Conservative65]

Do you really thinks it's about the amount?

It's could be a penny and it would be one cent too much when it comes to forcing one to support another. If you think it's about the amount, that's another lesson you failed to learn.

Jesus will love you for it even more...

How did Jesus get into the picture? Why are you bringing religion into the conversation? Are you assuming that everybody is of the Christian faith?

Do you need faith to honor a good deed?

I am not the one bringing religion into this. Good deed should come from inner conviction and not from any book.

Then you have no inner conviction either?

Then you think it's your place to define "good" for other people?

 

[Conservative65]

When you give someone a birthday present of money, do you put limitations on what can be bought with the money?

Not the same. If you think a gift given willfully and something handed to someone another group was forced to fund is the same, we need to have a lesson on that before we can have a lesson on why freeloaders shouldn't be able to buy chips, sodas, and candy bars with money someone else earned.

should we do the same for anyone getting paid from public funds?

Be more precise, sock.

any public employee or public servant, grasshopper.

Sock, those, employed in the public sector are actually doing something in exchange for their wages. Your reasoning of "getting paid from public funds" has major flaws.

Those EMPLOYED in the public sector are also paying the taxes that fund the handouts. In this situation, there are two groups. Those that earn their whether it be public or private employment or those that don't and have those of us that do support them.

 

[Conservative65]

My goode comrade, what happened to Individual Liberty and natural rights?

In context we were talking about an already existing program.
OTH, I do not agree with government sanctioned charity so the whole damned program is for the sole purpose of obtaining votes for the left on our taxpayer dollars.

I am on the other side of this issue. Defense spending is more lucrative, if you just wan to buy votes.

Weird observation based on fiction. The masses who vote for the left are the freeloaders. Fat cats in the arms manufacturing industry and those who finance them cannot muster enough votes on their own to swing the pendulum.

those who get paid for it, tend to vote for it.

Again, it is a drop in a bucket what votes they can muster. It is the welfare crowd who elects leftists.

It's along the same lines of the two groups I mentioned before. You have those that earn a living and then you have those that vote for one.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is; homeless persons have a Right to Work.

Just like the Constitution, you have no concept of what Right to Work means. You think someone that doesn't have what I've earned should get it and I should pay for it on their behalf.

right to work means right to earn it. why not blame the employment sector?

It doesn't mean you have a right to a job.

no right to work means no right earn.

The people on food stamps, welfare, and any other freebie program don't earn a damn bit of it.

the rich profit from it with their capital gains preference.

 

[danielpalos]

He never had to do it because of the social structure during that period, but did think it a great idea...

That's strange. His teachings say nothing of mandates using the government to force it form someone else.

The Jews were required to leave their land fallow every 7 years and people were free to harvest what grew, and a traveler was allowed to freely eat from fields, and Jews were required a 10% tithe for the poor....yet we know that Jesus is not God, but the proof in in the Bible of God's generosity of his planet..

That was a religious law not a social law.

As for the 10% tithe, that's within the teaching of Christianity. It also teaches that it should be done for the right reasons. However, if someone doesn't give their 10%, the government doesn't come and take it from them to give to the church.

Another lesson you haven't learned is that when one group is forced to support the freeloaders, it's not generosity. Generosity comes through a willingness and voluntarily act by the giver not a mandate from the taker.

Religious and civil laws were one in the same during that period of time...The leaders then were both religious and civil leaders...

Generosity and a mandate don't mean the same thing. You can't mandate charity.

Tax or tithe.

 

[Conservative65]

Not the same. If you think a gift given willfully and something handed to someone another group was forced to fund is the same, we need to have a lesson on that before we can have a lesson on why freeloaders shouldn't be able to buy chips, sodas, and candy bars with money someone else earned.

should we do the same for anyone getting paid from public funds?

Be more precise, sock.

any public employee or public servant, grasshopper.

Sock, those, employed in the public sector are actually doing something in exchange for their wages. Your reasoning of "getting paid from public funds" has major flaws.

no; it is about being paid from the public trough and requiring an audit, as a result.

No, it's about earning vs. not earning. Those in public employment pay the taxes so the freeloaders not working can have anything. It must be sad to know that the only way you'll ever get shit is for someone else to fund it for you.

 

[danielpalos]

Not the same. If you think a gift given willfully and something handed to someone another group was forced to fund is the same, we need to have a lesson on that before we can have a lesson on why freeloaders shouldn't be able to buy chips, sodas, and candy bars with money someone else earned.

should we do the same for anyone getting paid from public funds?

Be more precise, sock.

any public employee or public servant, grasshopper.

Sock, those, employed in the public sector are actually doing something in exchange for their wages. Your reasoning of "getting paid from public funds" has major flaws.

Those EMPLOYED in the public sector are also paying the taxes that fund the handouts. In this situation, there are two groups. Those that earn their whether it be public or private employment or those that don't and have those of us that do support them.

thank goodness for Individual choice and social mobility.

 

[danielpalos]

In context we were talking about an already existing program.
OTH, I do not agree with government sanctioned charity so the whole damned program is for the sole purpose of obtaining votes for the left on our taxpayer dollars.

I am on the other side of this issue. Defense spending is more lucrative, if you just wan to buy votes.

Weird observation based on fiction. The masses who vote for the left are the freeloaders. Fat cats in the arms manufacturing industry and those who finance them cannot muster enough votes on their own to swing the pendulum.

those who get paid for it, tend to vote for it.

Again, it is a drop in a bucket what votes they can muster. It is the welfare crowd who elects leftists.

It's along the same lines of the two groups I mentioned before. You have those that earn a living and then you have those that vote for one.

one group gets paid for it and participates more, under any form of Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

should we do the same for anyone getting paid from public funds?

Be more precise, sock.

any public employee or public servant, grasshopper.

Sock, those, employed in the public sector are actually doing something in exchange for their wages. Your reasoning of "getting paid from public funds" has major flaws.

no; it is about being paid from the public trough and requiring an audit, as a result.

No, it's about earning vs. not earning. Those in public employment pay the taxes so the freeloaders not working can have anything. It must be sad to know that the only way you'll ever get shit is for someone else to fund it for you.

No, it is not about earning or not earning, or we could simply fine companies in Right to Work States until there is no homelessness.

 

[Conservative65]

That's strange. His teachings say nothing of mandates using the government to force it form someone else.

The Jews were required to leave their land fallow every 7 years and people were free to harvest what grew, and a traveler was allowed to freely eat from fields, and Jews were required a 10% tithe for the poor....yet we know that Jesus is not God, but the proof in in the Bible of God's generosity of his planet..

That was a religious law not a social law.

As for the 10% tithe, that's within the teaching of Christianity. It also teaches that it should be done for the right reasons. However, if someone doesn't give their 10%, the government doesn't come and take it from them to give to the church.

Another lesson you haven't learned is that when one group is forced to support the freeloaders, it's not generosity. Generosity comes through a willingness and voluntarily act by the giver not a mandate from the taker.

Religious and civil laws were one in the same during that period of time...The leaders then were both religious and civil leaders...

Generosity and a mandate don't mean the same thing. You can't mandate charity.

Tax or tithe.

A tax is a mandate. Idiots like you equate it to charity and generosity. The definitions of the two are polar opposites.

 

[Conservative65]

should we do the same for anyone getting paid from public funds?

Be more precise, sock.

any public employee or public servant, grasshopper.

Sock, those, employed in the public sector are actually doing something in exchange for their wages. Your reasoning of "getting paid from public funds" has major flaws.

Those EMPLOYED in the public sector are also paying the taxes that fund the handouts. In this situation, there are two groups. Those that earn their whether it be public or private employment or those that don't and have those of us that do support them.

thank goodness for Individual choice and social mobility.

You mean like your choice to be a freeloader?

 

[Conservative65]

I am on the other side of this issue. Defense spending is more lucrative, if you just wan to buy votes.

Weird observation based on fiction. The masses who vote for the left are the freeloaders. Fat cats in the arms manufacturing industry and those who finance them cannot muster enough votes on their own to swing the pendulum.

those who get paid for it, tend to vote for it.

Again, it is a drop in a bucket what votes they can muster. It is the welfare crowd who elects leftists.

It's along the same lines of the two groups I mentioned before. You have those that earn a living and then you have those that vote for one.

one group gets paid for it and participates more, under any form of Capitalism.

The group earning it should get paid for it. Those unwilling to do for themselves should do without. That's capitalism. It's freeloaders like you that want to introduce socialism into it.

If someone TRULY can't work or didn't cause their own situation, I have no problem voluntarily helping them. For those that WON'T work or whose own bad choices they continue to make while wanting someone else to pay for those mistakes put them in their situation, I'll let them starve.

I've noticed that the people standing at intersections no long hold signs that say "Will work for food". Their says are asking for handouts. When they used to offer to work for food, I stopped and asked one to do some work for me offering to pay him AND feed him. When he found out what kind of work it was, he said he couldn't do that kind of work but he would take money anyway. He got NOTHING.

 

[danielpalos]

The Jews were required to leave their land fallow every 7 years and people were free to harvest what grew, and a traveler was allowed to freely eat from fields, and Jews were required a 10% tithe for the poor....yet we know that Jesus is not God, but the proof in in the Bible of God's generosity of his planet..

That was a religious law not a social law.

As for the 10% tithe, that's within the teaching of Christianity. It also teaches that it should be done for the right reasons. However, if someone doesn't give their 10%, the government doesn't come and take it from them to give to the church.

Another lesson you haven't learned is that when one group is forced to support the freeloaders, it's not generosity. Generosity comes through a willingness and voluntarily act by the giver not a mandate from the taker.

Religious and civil laws were one in the same during that period of time...The leaders then were both religious and civil leaders...

Generosity and a mandate don't mean the same thing. You can't mandate charity.

Tax or tithe.

A tax is a mandate. Idiots like you equate it to charity and generosity. The definitions of the two are polar opposites.

some religions, mandate charity.