Food Stamps OK For Porn, Tatoos, Jewelry

[g5000]

"Hmmmm...there are billions of dollars a year donated to charities, many of whom feed, clothe, and shelter the poor.

"Could it be I was wrong about there being no poor? Could it be I was wrong that all the poor are living high on the hog?


Naaaaaaahhhhh!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Walk into a church and announce they can stop donating money to feed and clothe and shelter the poor.

Chickenshit.

Now watch how I eviscerate you without resorting to the language of the sort that indicates that you've lost an argument.

Let's be honest.

You are merely a second-rater of limited education and even less knowledge, who wanders around annoying folks by using a megaphone to tout his supposed 'charities.'

Relying on you for knowledge of any variety would be like rushing to England for dental care.
Did I nail it?
Be honest.....you've heard that same thing a hundred times, haven't you.

Go on. Go to a private charity and tell them there are no poor.

If there are no poor, why are there charities?

Hmmm...

You can't eviscerate the truth. I would say, "Nice try", but you are too feeble, PoliticalChickenshit. The TRUTH has gutted YOU.

It must be terribly galling to post here, waiting for folks to pat you on the head, and tell you what a wonderful person you are....

...and it doesn't happen.

Have you considered altering your raison d'être and entering the realm of normalcy?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I actually anticipated this retreat of a post from you....

Are you inerudite, or close to inerudite?

ROFL

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PoliticalChic again

 

[PoliticalChic]

We have wiped out poverty! Tell the charities to stand down, Chickenshit.

What are you waiting for? They need to know they can keep their money. They don't need to donate any more. There is no poverty in America. We are the first country in history to have completely wiped it out!

I can't believe this is not being blasted in all the papers.

You need to get the word out.

1. There is no poverty in the actual sense of same: no home, no heat, no food.

2. There are folks who have less, and citizens who aim to aid these folks on a voluntary basis.

a. "Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

3. The federal government has no role to play in this.

a. Study the enumerated powers, Article I, section 8.

b. "In 1887, Congress passed a bill appropriating money to Texas farmers who were suffering thorough a catastrophic drought. President Grover Cleveland’s veto included this response:

“And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."
Obama's plan to stimulate the economy should be to do nothing.


Now, see if you can learn from this.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, as we opposed USDA interference with farming as well.

Exactly. That cheese and powdered milk was the result of billions in subsidies to corporate farmers.

Even in the 70's the democrats were the bitch of the corporations.

Absolutely correct, Uncensored! I recently read Sykes, "Nation of Moochers," and found:


1. According to John Stossel, the biggest welfare queens are farmers. Agricultural subsidies including direct payments, marketing loans, counter-cyclical payments, conservation subsidies, insurance, disaster aid, export subsidies, and agricultural research, taken together, have become one of the largest middle- and upper-class welfare programs in the nation.

a. “Washington paid out a quarter of a trillion dollars in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2009, but to characterize the programs as either a “big government” bailout or another form of welfare would be manifestly unfair – to bailouts and welfare.” Government’s Continuing Bailout of Corporate Agriculture | Environmental Working Group


And this:

2. In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare.” Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

Gee, in 2005 the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress which means to a pompous CON$erviNutzi that the Democratic Party is the bitch of the corporations.

 

[g5000]

I am retired military. I can show you a LOT of stories about waste, fraud, and abuse in the military.

If I were to use Chickenshit Logic™, I would have to conclude our military is a complete fraud and should be ended.

If I were to post story after story after story about fraud in the military to "prove" I am right, I would start to look pretty goddammed idiotic in short order.

That is because everyone would recognize that I would be guilty of confirmation bias. And they would recognize that I was ignoring everything which contradicted my bias.


Posting pictures of some fraudster's car, or some college student's menu, is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

To claim there is no real poverty in America, but at the same time point out how much money is donated to charities each year demonstrates a very bizarre form of doublethink. After all, why would there be charities collecting boastful amounts of money if there was no real poverty in America? This obvious contradiction doesn't even penetrate the willfully ignorant mind suffering under an extreme confirmation bias.

There also appears to be some weird belief that private charities are exempt from being scammed the way the government is. This is not true. I know firsthand how charities are scammed. And once in a while we see major news stories about fraudulent charities.

Fraud is an inherent part of any system. But the existence of fraud does not prove the structure within which it operates is itself useless.

There is fraud both within private charities and within government. So post your photos of your hot rods, and tell us about a college kid who actually brags about being a fraud. That just proves you have confirmation bias, and nothing more.

It in no way proves there is no real poverty in America. It is very simple to prove there is real poverty in America. Just go out and look. It's right there for all to see who are not willfully blinding themselves and doing flips and twists to avoid looking at it.

Then DO something about it.

Instead of using fraud to deny poverty exists and therefore to deny assistance to EVERYONE WHO IS POOR and not just the fraudsters, you should be fine tuning your anger to root out the fraudsters who are stealing money away from the people who really need it.

The people who really need it are out there. And you are one fucking, fucking, fucking asshole if you deny they exist. Pure and simple.

 

[Uncensored2008]

To be clear, the letter to the Danbury Baptists was merely an affirmation that the federal government would not meddle in their practices.

Exactly correct.

As is typical of the left, a single line was taken, out of context, and made the law of the land by the unelected judiciary.

Thomas Jefferson, use federal funds to establish a church at William and Marys. If his intent was to outlaw religion, as the left claims, then how could he have done that?

 

[g5000]

1. There is no poverty in the actual sense of same: no home, no heat, no food.

And there it is! That illogic of which I just spoke!

We feed, clothe, and shelter our poor. And then you come along and say there are no poor because you don't see anyone without food, heat, or shelter!

BWA-HA-HA!

a. "Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity.

And there is the doublethink of which I just spoke!

If there are no poor, why are we giving $300 billion to charity?


D'oh!



I am seriously begging you to follow that money and then tell the charities the poor don't exist since you don't see anyone without food, heat, or shelter. Tell them the poor are living high on the hog.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know the conservatives here don't care about this, but to the rest of you,

PoliticalChic is lying.

The EBT card does not allow non-food purchases out of one's food stamp benefit. The EBT cards cover food stamps and/or cash assistance, and the computers track your food stamp balance and you will only be able to buy non--food off your card if you have a cash assistance balance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Find a charity. Tell them there are no poor and that the poor live high on the hog.

Chickenshit.

Poor is a relative term, dumbfuck. Compared to Bill Gates, I'm poor.

We have no real poverty. Real poverty is life threatening. Real poverty is the slums of Calcutta or the back alleys of Mexico City, or most of Guatemala. No one in the USA faces death due to the inability to get a meal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. There is no poverty in the actual sense of same: no home, no heat, no food.

And there it is! That illogic of which I just spoke!

We feed, clothe, and shelter our poor. And then you come along and say there are no poor because you don't see anyone without food, heat, or shelter!

BWA-HA-HA!

a. "Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity.

And there is the doublethink of which I just spoke!

If there are no poor, why are we giving $300 billion to charity?


D'oh!



I am seriously begging you to follow that money and then tell the charities the poor don't exist since you don't see anyone without food, heat, or shelter. Tell them the poor are living high on the hog.

They love to say there is now no poverty in America, but then at some other time they'll slip up and say that the War on Poverty was a failure.

Apparently the talking point/marching orders issued from 'Nut Central aren't reviewed for compatibility.

 

[edthecynic]

We have wiped out poverty! Tell the charities to stand down, Chickenshit.

What are you waiting for? They need to know they can keep their money. They don't need to donate any more. There is no poverty in America. We are the first country in history to have completely wiped it out!

I can't believe this is not being blasted in all the papers.

You need to get the word out.

1. There is no poverty in the actual sense of same: no home, no heat, no food.

2. There are folks who have less, and citizens who aim to aid these folks on a voluntary basis.
Now, see if you can learn from this.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/$9-trillion-didnt-end-poverty-what-do

$9 Trillion Didn't End Poverty -- What to Do?

by Jenifer Zeigler

This article appeared on Foxnews.com on September 1, 2004.

At the Republican National Convention this week, there was a lot of talk about money. Pay raises for firefighters. Money for Swift Boat ads. Money to rebuild Iraq, and so on. One thing the pundits and presidential candidates didn't say much about, however, is how much money has been spent fighting the "war on poverty"--$9 trillion and counting. Yes, $9 trillion.

Yet, as the Census Bureau just reported, poverty in America is up. So what do the candidates propose we do?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Find a charity. Tell them there are no poor and that the poor live high on the hog.

Chickenshit.

Poor is a relative term, dumbfuck. Compared to Bill Gates, I'm poor.

We have no real poverty. Real poverty is life threatening. Real poverty is the slums of Calcutta or the back alleys of Mexico City, or most of Guatemala. No one in the USA faces death due to the inability to get a meal.

Apparently the conservatives in Calcutta have had better luck blocking social programs for the poor.

 

[g5000]

Find a charity. Tell them there are no poor and that the poor live high on the hog.

Chickenshit.

Poor is a relative term, dumbfuck. Compared to Bill Gates, I'm poor.

We have no real poverty. Real poverty is life threatening. Real poverty is the slums of Calcutta or the back alleys of Mexico City, or most of Guatemala. No one in the USA faces death due to the inability to get a meal.

Again with the illogic.

We are able to feed our poor, India isn't. A dumbshit like you does not see any homeless poor for two reasons. One, you never really looked. Two, many of our poor are fed and sheltered and clothed by our government and our private charities. If our government did not, then you would not be able to avoid seeing them.

We are fortunate to be a wealthy enough country that we can afford to do this.

But we still aren't catching them all. There are many falling through the cracks. Which is exactly why I started my charity.

I wish a couple of dumbshits like you and PoliticalChickenshit had come to me and said, "We have no real poverty."

Then I would have taken you on some of my deliveries. And after we dropped off some food to a family of three I know who are living in the back of a broken down pickup truck and wearing five coats apiece to keep out the cold, I would have tossed your asses out of the car once I got up to highway speed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To be clear, the letter to the Danbury Baptists was merely an affirmation that the federal government would not meddle in their practices.

Exactly correct.

As is typical of the left, a single line was taken, out of context, and made the law of the land by the unelected judiciary.

Thomas Jefferson, use federal funds to establish a church at William and Marys. If his intent was to outlaw religion, as the left claims, then how could he have done that?

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.

From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in
WALLACE V. JAFFREE
472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)
Nos. 83-812, 83-929.
Argued Dec. 4, 1984.
Decided June 4, 1985.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Apparently the conservatives in Calcutta have had better luck blocking social programs for the poor.

India is a socialist country.

Most real poverty can be found in countries run by the far left.

North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Guatemala.

Leftism breeds poverty, misery and despair. It's what you of the left have to offer mankind - it's all you have to offer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To be clear, the letter to the Danbury Baptists was merely an affirmation that the federal government would not meddle in their practices.

Exactly correct.

As is typical of the left, a single line was taken, out of context, and made the law of the land by the unelected judiciary.

Thomas Jefferson, use federal funds to establish a church at William and Marys. If his intent was to outlaw religion, as the left claims, then how could he have done that?

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.

From Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist dissent in
WALLACE V. JAFFREE
472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)
Nos. 83-812, 83-929.
Argued Dec. 4, 1984.
Decided June 4, 1985.

Did you just cite an opinion from the dissent, i.e., the losing side of a court decision, as the answer to a Constitutional question??

LOLOL.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Find a charity. Tell them there are no poor and that the poor live high on the hog.

Chickenshit.

Poor is a relative term, dumbfuck. Compared to Bill Gates, I'm poor.

We have no real poverty. Real poverty is life threatening. Real poverty is the slums of Calcutta or the back alleys of Mexico City, or most of Guatemala. No one in the USA faces death due to the inability to get a meal.

Apparently the conservatives in Calcutta have had better luck blocking social programs for the poor.

For your edification:

"For three decades after its independence in 1947, India strove for self-sufficiency instead of the gains of international trade, and gave the state an ever-increasing role in controlling the means of production, says Aiyar:

These policies yielded economic growth of 3.5 percent per year, which was half that of export-oriented Asian countries, and yielded slow progress in social indicators, too.
Growth per capita in India was even slower, at 1.49 percent per year.
It accelerated after reforms started tentatively in 1981, and shot up to 6.78 percent per year after reforms deepened in the current decade.


What would the impact on social indicators have been had India commenced economic reform one decade earlier, and enjoyed correspondingly faster economic growth and improvements in human development indicators?

In "Socialism Kills: The Cost of Delayed Economic Reform In India," Aiyar seeks to estimate the number of "missing children," "missing literates" and "missing non-poor" resulting from delayed reform, slower economic growth, and hence, slower improvement of social indicators.
He finds that with earlier reform:
14.5 million more children would have survived.
261 million more Indians would have become literate.
109 million more people would have risen above the poverty line.

The delay in economic reform represents an enormous social tragedy, says Aiyar. It drives home the point that India's socialist era, which claimed it would deliver growth with social justice, delivered neither."
Source: Swaminathan Aiyar, "Socialism Kills: The Cost of Delayed Economic Reform in India," Cato Institute, October 21, 2009.

 

[Plasmaball]

Those things are ALREADY not legally purchasable with SNAP.

So he is right...that legislation WAS nothing more than political grandstanding.

yep, he was right and this is nothing but faux outrage, partisan hot air...as expected at this point, from PC and her ops as of late.

One of the defining characteristics of the Left is the pretended- or actual- inability to connect the dots based on real world experience, if it infracts their political philosophy.

I'm surprised and disappointed in you, Care, if you have fallen into that mode.

Yeah but you don't connect the dot like a normal person. You connect them like a crazy person in a insane asylum. Jumping around from point to point trying to use the slightest thing as a link that there is a connection....and that's not even pointing out you leave out info...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apparently the conservatives in Calcutta have had better luck blocking social programs for the poor.

India is a socialist country.

Most real poverty can be found in countries run by the far left.

North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Guatemala.

Leftism breeds poverty, misery and despair. It's what you of the left have to offer mankind - it's all you have to offer.

Really? And what is the socialist program in India that feeds the poor?