Foodstamps Are Good

[mudwhistle]

In my opinion when someone like Sallow makes a statement such as the GOP wants to kick puppies, push widows into the streets, hold people hostage, or get rid of food stamps completely, such hyperbole cannot go unchallenged.

Is the federal food stamp program unconstitutional?

Depends.

That's something to think about.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

The bottom line is that the basic difference between Republicans and Democrats is that each believes in the principle that all men are created equal and that each should have an EQUAL shot at making it. Where we fall apart is that Republicans know that some will fail, some will not want to work to make it and some, for whatever reason will not be able to. Republicans believe that those that cannot "do" deserve a helping hand and it is our duty to provide for those that cannot do for themselves. It is a biblical principle (I know it just makes you lefties shriek). But if you are able to work and able to do what is necessary then that person must provide their own sustinance. If you want to sit on the street corner and do nothing, then Republicans believe that you have every right to do that. But don't come to us with a hand out asking for the rent or for anything else. You have the right to not work. You have the right to party all day and all night. AND, you therefore have the right to get kicked out in the street. Republicans believe in the addage that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you teach him to fish, you feed him for life. Those that don't want to learn are going to go hungry, aren't they?

Democrats believe that if you fail or if you don't want to work, then society has to GIVE you what you need to survive. Democrats also believe that a society MUST take what it needs from others to give it to those that do not want to work. Even at the point of a gun. So that person sitting on the street corner all day doing nothing, should be given what he needs to survive even if I have to come take it from you to give it to him. It's like the drug addict. Rarely do people force you to stick that needle in your arm. That is your CHOICE. You want to do drugs, then that's fine. But after you've spent all the money on drugs, don't come to me saying that you DESERVE something. No, you don't. Want to stop, seek treatment.

The principles of a Democrat can be understood really. They've got their hearts in the right place. They're just really niave. And when they come to STEAL from me (because that's just exactly what it is) it really pisses me off. They stop being nice people and become really irritating, especially when they start shreiking and whining. And they get really annoying when they STEAL from me at the point of a gun. I start to really resist that sort of crap, thus the reason for the rise of the Tea Party.

I believe Democrat voters have their hearts in the right place, for the most part. However their leaders sometimes don't. Using Socialism as a weapon to 'Spread the wealth' removes the goodwill factor and reduces it to revenge.

Redistribution of Wealth is the end game of most Democratic leaders. If you listen to the shriekers on this message board, they seem to actually believe that it would be a good thing to take all of the money from those who have made it and then give it to everyone else. Course, what they don't realize is that if you give $10,000 to someone who refuses to work hard, then in about two months the person to whom it was given to will be broke again and it will be in the hands of those who had it in the first place. So, it's a vicious cycle actually.

They want to STEAL it so that they can "redistribute" it and then in six months they will have to STEAL it again to redistribute it again. In that case, their is no benefit to working hard, because no matter what you do, the government is going to come and take it from you and give it to those who never really earn it.

Republicans and Tea Partiers, such as myself, are really getting fed up with this crap. No matter how much they take, they want MORE. And if you don't want to give it to THEM, for their agenda, then of course, you want to starve the elderly, kill children, and of course you want to be responsible for everyone going hungry. The only way to break this cycle is to take your money OUT of the cycle by moving it somewhere that it cannot be confiscated. Whether that be out of the country or whatever. Some smaller countries are working hard to fill that exact bill. Americans sheltering their money in foreign accounts, earning almost obscene returns.

Naturally, if you develop dependency in this manner, you create a block of votes that will keep getting you elected. So, you take MORE and you create MORE entitlement programs that create more voting blocks.

 

[Sallow]

The bottom line is that the basic difference between Republicans and Democrats is that each believes in the principle that all men are created equal and that each should have an EQUAL shot at making it. Where we fall apart is that Republicans know that some will fail, some will not want to work to make it and some, for whatever reason will not be able to. Republicans believe that those that cannot "do" deserve a helping hand and it is our duty to provide for those that cannot do for themselves. It is a biblical principle (I know it just makes you lefties shriek). But if you are able to work and able to do what is necessary then that person must provide their own sustinance. If you want to sit on the street corner and do nothing, then Republicans believe that you have every right to do that. But don't come to us with a hand out asking for the rent or for anything else. You have the right to not work. You have the right to party all day and all night. AND, you therefore have the right to get kicked out in the street. Republicans believe in the addage that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you teach him to fish, you feed him for life. Those that don't want to learn are going to go hungry, aren't they?

Democrats believe that if you fail or if you don't want to work, then society has to GIVE you what you need to survive. Democrats also believe that a society MUST take what it needs from others to give it to those that do not want to work. Even at the point of a gun. So that person sitting on the street corner all day doing nothing, should be given what he needs to survive even if I have to come take it from you to give it to him. It's like the drug addict. Rarely do people force you to stick that needle in your arm. That is your CHOICE. You want to do drugs, then that's fine. But after you've spent all the money on drugs, don't come to me saying that you DESERVE something. No, you don't. Want to stop, seek treatment.

The principles of a Democrat can be understood really. They've got their hearts in the right place. They're just really niave. And when they come to STEAL from me (because that's just exactly what it is) it really pisses me off. They stop being nice people and become really irritating, especially when they start shreiking and whining. And they get really annoying when they STEAL from me at the point of a gun. I start to really resist that sort of crap, thus the reason for the rise of the Tea Party.

I believe Democrat voters have their hearts in the right place, for the most part. However their leaders sometimes don't. Using Socialism as a weapon to 'Spread the wealth' removes the goodwill factor and reduces it to revenge.

Redistribution of Wealth is the end game of most Democratic leaders. If you listen to the shriekers on this message board, they seem to actually believe that it would be a good thing to take all of the money from those who have made it and then give it to everyone else. Course, what they don't realize is that if you give $10,000 to someone who refuses to work hard, then in about two months the person to whom it was given to will be broke again and it will be in the hands of those who had it in the first place. So, it's a vicious cycle actually.

They want to STEAL it so that they can "redistribute" it and then in six months they will have to STEAL it again to redistribute it again. In that case, their is no benefit to working hard, because no matter what you do, the government is going to come and take it from you and give it to those who never really earn it.

Republicans and Tea Partiers, such as myself, are really getting fed up with this crap. No matter how much they take, they want MORE. And if you don't want to give it to THEM, for their agenda, then of course, you want to starve the elderly, kill children, and of course you want to be responsible for everyone going hungry. The only way to break this cycle is to take your money OUT of the cycle by moving it somewhere that it cannot be confiscated. Whether that be out of the country or whatever.

Naturally, if you develop dependency in this manner, you create a block of votes that will keep getting you elected. So, you take MORE and you create MORE entitlement programs that create more voting blocks.

When tax payer funds are used to buy missiles from a private company...what do you call that?

Capitalism?

 

[Moonglow]

The bottom line is that the basic difference between Republicans and Democrats is that each believes in the principle that all men are created equal and that each should have an EQUAL shot at making it. Where we fall apart is that Republicans know that some will fail, some will not want to work to make it and some, for whatever reason will not be able to. Republicans believe that those that cannot "do" deserve a helping hand and it is our duty to provide for those that cannot do for themselves. It is a biblical principle (I know it just makes you lefties shriek). But if you are able to work and able to do what is necessary then that person must provide their own sustinance. If you want to sit on the street corner and do nothing, then Republicans believe that you have every right to do that. But don't come to us with a hand out asking for the rent or for anything else. You have the right to not work. You have the right to party all day and all night. AND, you therefore have the right to get kicked out in the street. Republicans believe in the addage that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you teach him to fish, you feed him for life. Those that don't want to learn are going to go hungry, aren't they?

Democrats believe that if you fail or if you don't want to work, then society has to GIVE you what you need to survive. Democrats also believe that a society MUST take what it needs from others to give it to those that do not want to work. Even at the point of a gun. So that person sitting on the street corner all day doing nothing, should be given what he needs to survive even if I have to come take it from you to give it to him. It's like the drug addict. Rarely do people force you to stick that needle in your arm. That is your CHOICE. You want to do drugs, then that's fine. But after you've spent all the money on drugs, don't come to me saying that you DESERVE something. No, you don't. Want to stop, seek treatment.

The principles of a Democrat can be understood really. They've got their hearts in the right place. They're just really niave. And when they come to STEAL from me (because that's just exactly what it is) it really pisses me off. They stop being nice people and become really irritating, especially when they start shreiking and whining. And they get really annoying when they STEAL from me at the point of a gun. I start to really resist that sort of crap, thus the reason for the rise of the Tea Party.

I believe Democrat voters have their hearts in the right place, for the most part. However their leaders sometimes don't. Using Socialism as a weapon to 'Spread the wealth' removes the goodwill factor and reduces it to revenge.

Redistribution of Wealth is the end game of most Democratic leaders. If you listen to the shriekers on this message board, they seem to actually believe that it would be a good thing to take all of the money from those who have made it and then give it to everyone else. Course, what they don't realize is that if you give $10,000 to someone who refuses to work hard, then in about two months the person to whom it was given to will be broke again and it will be in the hands of those who had it in the first place. So, it's a vicious cycle actually.

They want to STEAL it so that they can "redistribute" it and then in six months they will have to STEAL it again to redistribute it again. In that case, their is no benefit to working hard, because no matter what you do, the government is going to come and take it from you and give it to those who never really earn it.

Republicans and Tea Partiers, such as myself, are really getting fed up with this crap. No matter how much they take, they want MORE. And if you don't want to give it to THEM, for their agenda, then of course, you want to starve the elderly, kill children, and of course you want to be responsible for everyone going hungry. The only way to break this cycle is to take your money OUT of the cycle by moving it somewhere that it cannot be confiscated. Whether that be out of the country or whatever. Some smaller countries are working hard to fill that exact bill. Americans sheltering their money in foreign accounts, earning almost obscene returns.

Naturally, if you develop dependency in this manner, you create a block of votes that will keep getting you elected. So, you take MORE and you create MORE entitlement programs that create more voting blocks.

If that were so why are the rich getting richer?

 

[The Rabbi]

I believe Democrat voters have their hearts in the right place, for the most part. However their leaders sometimes don't. Using Socialism as a weapon to 'Spread the wealth' removes the goodwill factor and reduces it to revenge.

Redistribution of Wealth is the end game of most Democratic leaders. If you listen to the shriekers on this message board, they seem to actually believe that it would be a good thing to take all of the money from those who have made it and then give it to everyone else. Course, what they don't realize is that if you give $10,000 to someone who refuses to work hard, then in about two months the person to whom it was given to will be broke again and it will be in the hands of those who had it in the first place. So, it's a vicious cycle actually.

They want to STEAL it so that they can "redistribute" it and then in six months they will have to STEAL it again to redistribute it again. In that case, their is no benefit to working hard, because no matter what you do, the government is going to come and take it from you and give it to those who never really earn it.

Republicans and Tea Partiers, such as myself, are really getting fed up with this crap. No matter how much they take, they want MORE. And if you don't want to give it to THEM, for their agenda, then of course, you want to starve the elderly, kill children, and of course you want to be responsible for everyone going hungry. The only way to break this cycle is to take your money OUT of the cycle by moving it somewhere that it cannot be confiscated. Whether that be out of the country or whatever.

Naturally, if you develop dependency in this manner, you create a block of votes that will keep getting you elected. So, you take MORE and you create MORE entitlement programs that create more voting blocks.

When tax payer funds are used to buy missiles from a private company...what do you call that?

Capitalism?

When funds are used to buy missiles from a private company, the gov't pays money and gets something in return. Like anyone else.
When tax payer funds are handed outfor food and housing to poor people, what does the government get in return?

 

[Moonglow]

Redistribution of Wealth is the end game of most Democratic leaders. If you listen to the shriekers on this message board, they seem to actually believe that it would be a good thing to take all of the money from those who have made it and then give it to everyone else. Course, what they don't realize is that if you give $10,000 to someone who refuses to work hard, then in about two months the person to whom it was given to will be broke again and it will be in the hands of those who had it in the first place. So, it's a vicious cycle actually.

They want to STEAL it so that they can "redistribute" it and then in six months they will have to STEAL it again to redistribute it again. In that case, their is no benefit to working hard, because no matter what you do, the government is going to come and take it from you and give it to those who never really earn it.

Republicans and Tea Partiers, such as myself, are really getting fed up with this crap. No matter how much they take, they want MORE. And if you don't want to give it to THEM, for their agenda, then of course, you want to starve the elderly, kill children, and of course you want to be responsible for everyone going hungry. The only way to break this cycle is to take your money OUT of the cycle by moving it somewhere that it cannot be confiscated. Whether that be out of the country or whatever.

Naturally, if you develop dependency in this manner, you create a block of votes that will keep getting you elected. So, you take MORE and you create MORE entitlement programs that create more voting blocks.

When tax payer funds are used to buy missiles from a private company...what do you call that?

Capitalism?

When funds are used to buy missiles from a private company, the gov't pays money and gets something in return. Like anyone else.
When tax payer funds are handed outfor food and housing to poor people, what does the government get in return?

no riots, low crime.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jesus....I guess they don't want anyone voting for them.

That's the only explaination.

The GOP has made it quite clear that they only care about the wealthiest. They want to see anyone in the "bottom" 98% die of starvation or hypothermia.

Then they will have 100% of the vote....and not to have to worry about those lazy hungry children that will likely grow up to be theives anyway.

Given a choice, the GOP would re-establish slavery.....afterall...if them black people want free stuff, they can be owned by us and we will house 'em and feed 'em.

It will be a win win for all.

Ha ha

If that's the case then who's gonna clean their pools, cut their grass, or shine their shoes?

Show me any GOPer that says "I only care about the rich and I want to return to slavery".

What you're repeating is Democrat talking-points that have no more basis in reality then the existence of UFOs.

Show me which conservative policies or desired policies that affect the gap between rich and poor that do not widen that gap.

 

[Sallow]

Redistribution of Wealth is the end game of most Democratic leaders. If you listen to the shriekers on this message board, they seem to actually believe that it would be a good thing to take all of the money from those who have made it and then give it to everyone else. Course, what they don't realize is that if you give $10,000 to someone who refuses to work hard, then in about two months the person to whom it was given to will be broke again and it will be in the hands of those who had it in the first place. So, it's a vicious cycle actually.

They want to STEAL it so that they can "redistribute" it and then in six months they will have to STEAL it again to redistribute it again. In that case, their is no benefit to working hard, because no matter what you do, the government is going to come and take it from you and give it to those who never really earn it.

Republicans and Tea Partiers, such as myself, are really getting fed up with this crap. No matter how much they take, they want MORE. And if you don't want to give it to THEM, for their agenda, then of course, you want to starve the elderly, kill children, and of course you want to be responsible for everyone going hungry. The only way to break this cycle is to take your money OUT of the cycle by moving it somewhere that it cannot be confiscated. Whether that be out of the country or whatever.

Naturally, if you develop dependency in this manner, you create a block of votes that will keep getting you elected. So, you take MORE and you create MORE entitlement programs that create more voting blocks.

When tax payer funds are used to buy missiles from a private company...what do you call that?

Capitalism?

When funds are used to buy missiles from a private company, the gov't pays money and gets something in return. Like anyone else.
When tax payer funds are handed out for food and housing to poor people, what does the government get in return?

1. The Constitution allows for that where?

2. It fulfills the general welfare clause, it keeps folks from going under or becoming criminals (Which costs far more) and gives them a shot at the middle class. As well as injecting liquidity into the economy.

 

[Bfgrn]

The bottom line is that the basic difference between Republicans and Democrats is that each believes in the principle that all men are created equal and that each should have an EQUAL shot at making it. Where we fall apart is that Republicans know that some will fail, some will not want to work to make it and some, for whatever reason will not be able to. Republicans believe that those that cannot "do" deserve a helping hand and it is our duty to provide for those that cannot do for themselves. It is a biblical principle (I know it just makes you lefties shriek). But if you are able to work and able to do what is necessary then that person must provide their own sustinance. If you want to sit on the street corner and do nothing, then Republicans believe that you have every right to do that. But don't come to us with a hand out asking for the rent or for anything else. You have the right to not work. You have the right to party all day and all night. AND, you therefore have the right to get kicked out in the street. Republicans believe in the addage that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you teach him to fish, you feed him for life. Those that don't want to learn are going to go hungry, aren't they?

Democrats believe that if you fail or if you don't want to work, then society has to GIVE you what you need to survive. Democrats also believe that a society MUST take what it needs from others to give it to those that do not want to work. Even at the point of a gun. So that person sitting on the street corner all day doing nothing, should be given what he needs to survive even if I have to come take it from you to give it to him. It's like the drug addict. Rarely do people force you to stick that needle in your arm. That is your CHOICE. You want to do drugs, then that's fine. But after you've spent all the money on drugs, don't come to me saying that you DESERVE something. No, you don't. Want to stop, seek treatment.

The principles of a Democrat can be understood really. They've got their hearts in the right place. They're just really niave. And when they come to STEAL from me (because that's just exactly what it is) it really pisses me off. They stop being nice people and become really irritating, especially when they start shreiking and whining. And they get really annoying when they STEAL from me at the point of a gun. I start to really resist that sort of crap, thus the reason for the rise of the Tea Party.

That is quite a noble rant. It is one of the better self centered justifications I've heard, but here's the problem. I don't believe a word of it and here's why; your fairy tale requires other people to play along and conform to a role you supply for them. The right wing story is always the same. There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart' liberal who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, I refuse to play along. If you had the intelligence and curiosity to find out about poverty and what the 'War on Poverty' was about and what it wasn't about, it would save you from all the bloviation. But it's a lot easier for you to define it under YOUR self righteous terms so you don't have to care. It easier for you to neatly dismiss others and use 'dependency' and 'entitlement'.

There are reasons for and realities to poverty, you have focused on the LEAST of them.

When JFK's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program strove for maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best. Ref

 

[Jarhead]

When tax payer funds are used to buy missiles from a private company...what do you call that?

Capitalism?

When funds are used to buy missiles from a private company, the gov't pays money and gets something in return. Like anyone else.
When tax payer funds are handed out for food and housing to poor people, what does the government get in return?

1. The Constitution allows for that where?

2. It fulfills the general welfare clause, it keeps folks from going under or becoming criminals (Which costs far more) and gives them a shot at the middle class. As well as injecting liquidity into the economy.

you have trouble understanding the reality of the fact that people of different ideologies interpret the constitution based on their ideology....and therfore interpret it differently.

I am curious...were there food stamps back in the 1700's?
Was there the need for a sufficiently armed military?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Redistribution of Wealth is the end game of most Democratic leaders. If you listen to the shriekers on this message board, they seem to actually believe that it would be a good thing to take all of the money from those who have made it and then give it to everyone else. Course, what they don't realize is that if you give $10,000 to someone who refuses to work hard, then in about two months the person to whom it was given to will be broke again and it will be in the hands of those who had it in the first place. So, it's a vicious cycle actually.

They want to STEAL it so that they can "redistribute" it and then in six months they will have to STEAL it again to redistribute it again. In that case, their is no benefit to working hard, because no matter what you do, the government is going to come and take it from you and give it to those who never really earn it.

Republicans and Tea Partiers, such as myself, are really getting fed up with this crap. No matter how much they take, they want MORE. And if you don't want to give it to THEM, for their agenda, then of course, you want to starve the elderly, kill children, and of course you want to be responsible for everyone going hungry. The only way to break this cycle is to take your money OUT of the cycle by moving it somewhere that it cannot be confiscated. Whether that be out of the country or whatever.

Naturally, if you develop dependency in this manner, you create a block of votes that will keep getting you elected. So, you take MORE and you create MORE entitlement programs that create more voting blocks.

When tax payer funds are used to buy missiles from a private company...what do you call that?

Capitalism?

When funds are used to buy missiles from a private company, the gov't pays money and gets something in return. Like anyone else.
When tax payer funds are handed outfor food and housing to poor people, what does the government get in return?

We get people who are less poor. If there no merit whatsoever in making poor people a little less poor, then you win the argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In my opinion when someone like Sallow makes a statement such as the GOP wants to kick puppies, push widows into the streets, hold people hostage, or get rid of food stamps completely, such hyperbole cannot go unchallenged.

Is the federal food stamp program unconstitutional?

Depends.

That's something to think about.

Then if you're a 'constitutionalist' conservative who cannot justify, constitutionally, the food stamp program, then presumably you would want it abolished,

thus, Sallow is not hyperbolizing to suggest that conservatives (at least many of them) do in fact want to get rid of food stamps.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I believe Democrat voters have their hearts in the right place, for the most part. However their leaders sometimes don't. Using Socialism as a weapon to 'Spread the wealth' removes the goodwill factor and reduces it to revenge.

Redistribution of Wealth is the end game of most Democratic leaders. If you listen to the shriekers on this message board, they seem to actually believe that it would be a good thing to take all of the money from those who have made it and then give it to everyone else. Course, what they don't realize is that if you give $10,000 to someone who refuses to work hard, then in about two months the person to whom it was given to will be broke again and it will be in the hands of those who had it in the first place. So, it's a vicious cycle actually.

They want to STEAL it so that they can "redistribute" it and then in six months they will have to STEAL it again to redistribute it again. In that case, their is no benefit to working hard, because no matter what you do, the government is going to come and take it from you and give it to those who never really earn it.

Republicans and Tea Partiers, such as myself, are really getting fed up with this crap. No matter how much they take, they want MORE. And if you don't want to give it to THEM, for their agenda, then of course, you want to starve the elderly, kill children, and of course you want to be responsible for everyone going hungry. The only way to break this cycle is to take your money OUT of the cycle by moving it somewhere that it cannot be confiscated. Whether that be out of the country or whatever.

Naturally, if you develop dependency in this manner, you create a block of votes that will keep getting you elected. So, you take MORE and you create MORE entitlement programs that create more voting blocks.

When tax payer funds are used to buy missiles from a private company...what do you call that?

Capitalism?

Really??? Since this is a capatalistic nation and the government does not manufacture it's own equipment for defense, it has to purchase those goods from companies that provide those goods. Surely, you are not advocating that the United States government manufacture it's own?

 

[mudwhistle]

When tax payer funds are used to buy missiles from a private company...what do you call that?

Capitalism?

When funds are used to buy missiles from a private company, the gov't pays money and gets something in return. Like anyone else.
When tax payer funds are handed outfor food and housing to poor people, what does the government get in return?

We get people who are less poor. If there no merit whatsoever in making poor people a little less poor, then you win the argument.

They are less poor, then they spend it and become equally poor as before...then they need more and more yet remain poor.

 

[mudwhistle]

Is the federal food stamp program unconstitutional?

Depends.

That's something to think about.

Then if you're a 'constitutionalist' conservative who cannot justify, constitutionally, the food stamp program, then presumably you would want it abolished,

thus, Sallow is not hyperbolizing to suggest that conservatives (at least many of them) do in fact want to get rid of food stamps.

Justifying Sallow is a foolish game and only encourages his stupidity.

I cannot say if the food stamp program is unconsitutional because 1. I am not a legal scholar and 2. Even if I were I'd have to research the possibility. I'd have to read the regs on it and fully understand them. And also 3. There is some room for debate whether or not it is because the Constitution has some flexibility that is inherent in it.

I don't recall anyone challenging it's constitutionality. If we were forced to use it and purchase them that's another thing entirely.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

When tax payer funds are used to buy missiles from a private company...what do you call that?

Capitalism?

When funds are used to buy missiles from a private company, the gov't pays money and gets something in return. Like anyone else.
When tax payer funds are handed out for food and housing to poor people, what does the government get in return?

1. The Constitution allows for that where?

2. It fulfills the general welfare clause, it keeps folks from going under or becoming criminals (Which costs far more) and gives them a shot at the middle class. As well as injecting liquidity into the economy.

The constitution specifically provides that the government will "provide for the common defense." In 1780, that meant that the United States Government purchased three frigates, the USS Constitution and two others. The US Government did not build those three frigates, it contracted with ship builders to build it for them. It does the same thing today.

And Johnson's war on poverty got us where? All of the trillions of dollars spent on the war on poverty ended up in the pockets of those who profited from that war, just like those that profited from any other war.

It is amazing to me that people are just shocked that "the rich just keep on getting richer." You think that generally, people just hand them money? You give someone who refuses to provide for their own sustinence money and they will spend it. They don't GENERALLY use it to better their position. Those that work and provide a service will work to get that money as well. Then what?? You going to STEAL from the rich to provide for those who refuse to work? It's a vicious cycle and it may make you feel good, but it's not going to do anything other than "make the rich, richer."

 

[Sallow]

Redistribution of Wealth is the end game of most Democratic leaders. If you listen to the shriekers on this message board, they seem to actually believe that it would be a good thing to take all of the money from those who have made it and then give it to everyone else. Course, what they don't realize is that if you give $10,000 to someone who refuses to work hard, then in about two months the person to whom it was given to will be broke again and it will be in the hands of those who had it in the first place. So, it's a vicious cycle actually.

They want to STEAL it so that they can "redistribute" it and then in six months they will have to STEAL it again to redistribute it again. In that case, their is no benefit to working hard, because no matter what you do, the government is going to come and take it from you and give it to those who never really earn it.

Republicans and Tea Partiers, such as myself, are really getting fed up with this crap. No matter how much they take, they want MORE. And if you don't want to give it to THEM, for their agenda, then of course, you want to starve the elderly, kill children, and of course you want to be responsible for everyone going hungry. The only way to break this cycle is to take your money OUT of the cycle by moving it somewhere that it cannot be confiscated. Whether that be out of the country or whatever.

Naturally, if you develop dependency in this manner, you create a block of votes that will keep getting you elected. So, you take MORE and you create MORE entitlement programs that create more voting blocks.

When tax payer funds are used to buy missiles from a private company...what do you call that?

Capitalism?

Really??? Since this is a capatalistic nation and the government does not manufacture it's own equipment for defense, it has to purchase those goods from companies that provide those goods. Surely, you are not advocating that the United States government manufacture it's own?

You're using public money.

Think about it.

And the Constitution does not have anything in it that allows for this.

 

[Douger]

Do you have an alternative proposal to deal with 45,000,000 Americans who cannot afford to feed themselves and their families?

I know, how about we give billionaires still more tax breaks?

Think that will help?

What's your plan?

That seems like exactly what the plan is right now.

It's good to give corporations tax breaks but they have to comply with certain standards that will get America back to work at a living wage. Building from the bottom up seems like a better way to me.

Build cities and towns that will attract business. Good schools, infrastructure, low energy costs and transportation sounds like a good place to start. Then the companies can provide training, low cost health insurance and other incentives to keep their employees happy and working their schedules day in and day out.

These are only a few ways that business can earn tax breaks. They don't want to work for anything yet have everything tho. Everyone else can take the scraps.

I'm hoping and expecting better for American citizens. Call me naive.

Ever heard of a country called China ? Americas large corporations have bahhhwd of diwehhktah lists that look more like lists of the IsNtReally parliament. They don't give a flying fuck about the US.
Money Honey. Nada Mas

 

[ClosedCaption]

In my opinion when someone like Sallow makes a statement such as the GOP wants to kick puppies, push widows into the streets, hold people hostage, or get rid of food stamps completely, such hyperbole cannot go unchallenged.

Then take it up with this guy:

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman

Truman Library - Public Papers of the Presidents: Harry S. Truman


I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
Harry S. Truman

I can't take it up with Truman. He's dead.

Truman wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

While driving thru Missouri his wife had to stop him from constantly saying how great the shit smelled in the farmlands they were driving through

I love the way you guys question peoples intellect without addressing the issue put forth. Truman lays out the truth and you respond with a story about driving through farms.

 

[Jarhead]

When tax payer funds are used to buy missiles from a private company...what do you call that?

Capitalism?

Really??? Since this is a capatalistic nation and the government does not manufacture it's own equipment for defense, it has to purchase those goods from companies that provide those goods. Surely, you are not advocating that the United States government manufacture it's own?

You're using public money.

Think about it.

And the Constitution does not have anything in it that allows for this.

The gentelman that wrote the consitution and ratified it...

How did they furnish the military with armament?