Foodstamps Are Good

[Kuros]

Many food stamps are given to single mothers who have children they can't fully support. But Republicans would rather these children pull themselves up by their bootstraps than cut "defense."

Where is the out-of-control spending?

Luckily, there are two Republican Presidential candidates who acknowledge that we should end the wars and scale back military spending: Gary Johnson and Ron Paul.

 

[Sallow]

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.

I haven't once seen you back up anything on these boards with anything legitimate. Whether that be from a real world story, the Constitution or history.

Again and again you just spew hyperbolic nonsense and expect to be accepted as "wise".

What nonsense.

 

[Sallow]

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?

The Continetal army was disbanded after the revolution. In any case..you can simply point to the clause in the constitution that allows the government to purchase anything from private corporations. Should be easy as pie.

And then you can explain to me how that isn't re-distribution of wealth..as outlined by Bachmann (who by the way took government pork for her family's farm and husband's clinic)

 

[Sallow]

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.

And that..

Is Mudwhistle's whole show.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

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.[/QUOTE]

Okay, we're using public money to "provide for the common defense" exactly as the Constitution requires. Does it specifically state that the United States Government will contract with private companies to provide material for that defense? No, it doesn't. Course, it also doesn't advise that abortion is an "inherent right to privacy" either. Nor does the constitution advise that the United States government has a responsibility to provide low interest rate loans for college and it definately does not say that the United States government has the right to require each citizen to purchase health insurance.

Your arguement is a dead end, unless you want to be a strict constitutionalist now. I would definately support that.

 

[Sallow]

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."

Ah so now your reading of the Constitution in terms of it's clauses is in a very general non-specific sense? Right? You do know that the conservatives at the time were vehmently opposed to those purchases. Right? They perferred to give the barbary pirates tribute as they thought it would be cheaper.

And Johnson's war on poverty did exactly what it was meant to do. It moved millions of people out of poverty into the middle class. No idea why you brought this up..but okay.

The rich in this country get rich because of several reasons:

-Taxpayer provided (Government) Infrastucture.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Research and Development.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Justice system.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Grants.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Contracts.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Military protecting their interests overseas.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Law enforcement.

So sure. Conservatives have no problem with wealth re-distribution..so long as it goes from poor to rich. The other way..not so much.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

He just spent a few paragraphs splaining it and you had to ask?

 

[JMadison]

So, you are promoting the law of the jungle. THAT is not a civil society. Take a course in civics.

Food stamps and unemployment will do little to create 'new' jobs, but the money that goes to families will go directly back into the economy, keep many homes from going into foreclosure and keep people from living in 2010 Hoovervilles.

What right wing conservatives ALWAYS ignore is the human cost and capital. Their morally bankrupt punishments require some group of human beings to evaporate.

During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Democrats care about votes. Nothing more.

You see, that's your problem...projection. Liberals DO care about people and are enraged by injustice. You right wing Pharisee can't feel empathy or concern for your fellow man so you must find a way to justify it, but it only indicts YOU...


We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

Using OTHER people's money certainly makes it easier to seem charitable.

 

[GWV5903]

I was just listened to an extremely idiotic argument about how food stamps are such a great asset to the economy.

This Democrat spokesman was talking about all of the wonders of food stamps. How they put food in the mouths of the poor and all of the usual liberal rhetoric. The spokesperson that was in opposition started in on him saying that because of the increase of people applying and qualifying for food stamps it is a major drag on the states. She was trying to sell her case that the increase of food stamps is more bad then good. More people employed and being able to afford food without food stamps is more desirable.

The Dem started saying "Oh, so you want to starve people?????"

I kid you not....that was his response!!

This is a microcosm of how a liberal or a progressive creates a wedge-issue. They propose policies that they and their opposition both know is unsustainable and know will cause a common-sense response and then they pull out the "you wanna starve the poor" accusation. The problem is, this has been working for Democrats for a long time. You'd think people would get wise to it. They used it on seniors when the GOP released their economic plan. "Those evil Republicans want to throw you and your wheel-chair over a cliff!!!"

You have to be a morally corrupt individual to make this kind of issue part of your campaign. Anyone who supports such a candidate or political party is in all respects living in denial. You have to live in a vacuum to think this way in the first place. Saying with a straight face that wide spread use of food stamps is a good thing is a radical rationalization similar to Nancy Pelosi proudly declaring that unemployment is helping the economy.

Lets put aside the loss of revenue to the states just for giving out food stamps to more and more people. Not only does the state have to reimburse stores for the lost sales, but also the state misses out on sales tax because no taxes are collected in the transactions. This shortfall has to be made up somewhere or the government will have to shrink or go broke.

Do Democrats realize this? Sure they do. But it fits into their class-warfare act. This all benefits the poor and everyone else suffers because of it.

Is this a good thing to them??? You be the judge.

Seems to me the Dems have policies on issues that are in direct conflict with each other. People are starving....feed them. People are fat....starve them. It's like the Global Warming/Ozone Depletion deal they've used to jack up the price of energy and cost billions to businesses and consumers in favor of their Green energy regulations in the EPA. Too much ozone or not enough. They've got us coming and going. On one hand they're saying we're too fat, on the other they're saying people are starving. It doesn't matter what the issue is. They want to spend more to deal with it forgetting the fact that they caused the problem in the first place. What it amounts to is they've turned the federal government into a perversion of it's original self. A bloated and abusive entity that is an Albatross to the taxpayers of the country.

I know this is a no-brainer.....but I see this repeated in several hot issues. In immigration reform, in Social Security reform, in health care reform, the list goes on and on. The left takes a populist position that they know is unsustainable and they roll with it. These days people are worried because they have been unemployed for a year or more so they tend to fall for the Democrat's argument. People have to be taken care of. Wouldn't it be better if they lived in a country where the government got out of the way so they could take care of themselves....if they so choose????

So, you are promoting the law of the jungle. THAT is not a civil society. Take a course in civics.

Food stamps and unemployment will do little to create 'new' jobs, but the money that goes to families will go directly back into the economy, keep many homes from going into foreclosure and keep people from living in 2010 Hoovervilles.

What right wing conservatives ALWAYS ignore is the human cost and capital. Their morally bankrupt punishments require some group of human beings to evaporate.

During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

The hypocrisy in the belief that carrying people is caring is sad, stupid and pure crap....

All it has done is build a section of society that is Dependant on the gov....

True support for the down trodden is correct, the continuation for decades is anything but care, all the Democrats have done with this is control votes and control the weak minded, that would include you Bfgrn...

You have now confirmed the crack is in your skull as well....

 

[ClosedCaption]

Giving someone a crutch doesnt mean that they wont ever want to walk again. It goes the same for welfare. The notion that helping someone makes them WANT failure is stupidly simple minded

 

[Jarhead]

Giving someone a crutch doesnt mean that they wont ever want to walk again. It goes the same for welfare. The notion that helping someone makes them WANT failure is stupidly simple minded

I agree...

Most dont want food stamps or welfare.....most are forced to take it to survive.
Some however, abuse the entitlement and use it to satisfy their laziness....but that is a consequence of helping the masses.

However...likewise...

Most business owners are not selfish and would help the economy if there was regulation reform...they would still do the right thing, and likely succeed and end up expanding and hiring....but there are still the few business owners that would capitalize on regulation reform and find ways to maximize profits with little regard to the econology and "doing the right thing"....but that is a consequence of helping the masses.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Giving someone a crutch doesnt mean that they wont ever want to walk again. It goes the same for welfare. The notion that helping someone makes them WANT failure is stupidly simple minded

I agree...

Most dont want food stamps or welfare.....most are forced to take it to survive.
Some however, abuse the entitlement and use it to satisfy their laziness....but that is a consequence of helping the masses.

However...likewise...

Most business owners are not selfish and would help the economy if there was regulation reform...they would still do the right thing, and likely succeed and end up expanding and hiring....but there are still the few business owners that would capitalize on regulation reform and find ways to maximize profits with little regard to the econology and "doing the right thing"....but that is a consequence of helping the masses.

I think we agree but it depends on what regulation reform entails. My general thinking on it is that regulation reform is being used as a buzz word for deregulation which the Corporations and banking industries have been crazy successful at accomplishing to everyones detriment.

 

[Jarhead]

Giving someone a crutch doesnt mean that they wont ever want to walk again. It goes the same for welfare. The notion that helping someone makes them WANT failure is stupidly simple minded

I agree...

Most dont want food stamps or welfare.....most are forced to take it to survive.
Some however, abuse the entitlement and use it to satisfy their laziness....but that is a consequence of helping the masses.

However...likewise...

Most business owners are not selfish and would help the economy if there was regulation reform...they would still do the right thing, and likely succeed and end up expanding and hiring....but there are still the few business owners that would capitalize on regulation reform and find ways to maximize profits with little regard to the econology and "doing the right thing"....but that is a consequence of helping the masses.

I think we agree but it depends on what regulation reform entails. My general thinking on it is that regulation reform is being used as a buzz word for deregulation which the Corporations and banking industries have been crazy successful at accomplishing to everyones detriment.

I am not referring to S/O necessarily...but that does require SOME reform.

Cafe standards....and other regulations need to be re-evaluated. Manufacturers can not compete with foreign competitors....

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

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."

Ah so now your reading of the Constitution in terms of it's clauses is in a very general non-specific sense? Right? You do know that the conservatives at the time were vehmently opposed to those purchases. Right? They perferred to give the barbary pirates tribute as they thought it would be cheaper.

And Johnson's war on poverty did exactly what it was meant to do. It moved millions of people out of poverty into the middle class. No idea why you brought this up..but okay.

The rich in this country get rich because of several reasons:

-Taxpayer provided (Government) Infrastucture.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Research and Development.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Justice system.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Grants.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Contracts.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Military protecting their interests overseas.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Law enforcement.

So sure. Conservatives have no problem with wealth re-distribution..so long as it goes from poor to rich. The other way..not so much.

Yes, the conservatives of the time wanted to keep paying the tribute, however, the MAIN reasons was that the United States did not have a Navy that was capable of protecting American vessels in the area. Still paying the debt racked up from the War of Independence, conservatives of the time were reluctant to spend even more money to build the ships necessary. None of the leaders of the day WANTED to pay tribute. Jefferson and Washington though, felt that the Navy would have to be built regardless, especially because of the troubles with France and Britian. Luckily, they got their way as the ships became indespensible during the war of 1812.

Johnson's war on poverty was a dismal failure based upon the amount of money spent and additionally many experts believe that it was singularly responsible for the destruction of the African-American family. The reason I brought it up is because although it was based upon what I think was an honest desire, the rates of poverty have remained generally the same in the decades since. Economic indicators have more affect on poverty rates than a massive influx of government give-aways. If the economy is doing well then poverty rates decline. If it does poorly, then poverty rates increase. Simple economics really. When you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to create a single job (as the recent stimulus bill did) are you really getting your money's worth? I don't think so.

Your last point about why the rich stay rich is subjective nonsense. It indicates a belief that the entire system is geared towards keeping a division between rich and poor. The simple fact is that if you work hard, you CAN succeed. If you don't, then you will not. It is not my responsibility and it is not the governments responsibility to suppliment your desire or your lack thereof. To STEAL from me is wrong, I don't care if a man in a mask does it or if the government does it.

I would be VERY happy if the Constitution was interpreted VERY LITERALLY. Sallow, I think your heart is generally good. I really do and I appreciate your well thought out points, but I also think that you hold as truths things that just are not true. We will disagree and so is life.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I agree...

Most dont want food stamps or welfare.....most are forced to take it to survive.
Some however, abuse the entitlement and use it to satisfy their laziness....but that is a consequence of helping the masses.

However...likewise...

Most business owners are not selfish and would help the economy if there was regulation reform...they would still do the right thing, and likely succeed and end up expanding and hiring....but there are still the few business owners that would capitalize on regulation reform and find ways to maximize profits with little regard to the econology and "doing the right thing"....but that is a consequence of helping the masses.

I think we agree but it depends on what regulation reform entails. My general thinking on it is that regulation reform is being used as a buzz word for deregulation which the Corporations and banking industries have been crazy successful at accomplishing to everyones detriment.

I am not referring to S/O necessarily...but that does require SOME reform.

Cafe standards....and other regulations need to be re-evaluated. Manufacturers can not compete with foreign competitors....

See I believe that even if we changed every regulation to match Chinas, corporations would they'll run over there to create jobs unless the American worker is willing to work at the same pay of the chinese.

 

[mudwhistle]

Giving someone a crutch doesnt mean that they wont ever want to walk again. It goes the same for welfare. The notion that helping someone makes them WANT failure is stupidly simple minded

It's not simple-minded to believe that some will take free money and benefits rather then work.

I have renters that collect $3000 every month plus 80% of their rent and utilities is paid by the state.

All they do is swallow their pride, take the handouts, and vote Democrat.

 

[Jarhead]

I think we agree but it depends on what regulation reform entails. My general thinking on it is that regulation reform is being used as a buzz word for deregulation which the Corporations and banking industries have been crazy successful at accomplishing to everyones detriment.

I am not referring to S/O necessarily...but that does require SOME reform.

Cafe standards....and other regulations need to be re-evaluated. Manufacturers can not compete with foreign competitors....

See I believe that even if we changed every regulation to match Chinas, corporations would they'll run over there to create jobs unless the American worker is willing to work at the same pay of the chinese.

are you aware of the small percentage of companies that have foreign plants and offices?

Look at NYC......thousands and thousands of companies...in the Empire State Building alone!

200 square feet...1000 square feet.....5000 square feet.....

There are tens of thosands of companies in every major city.

Stop assuming all are like GE.......most are not. Most are small time manufacturers of brass units.....or rubber hoses.....and have small shops in queens.......and are getting killed by regulations....THOSE are the ones that are the backbone of American Industry.

 

[Sallow]

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."

Ah so now your reading of the Constitution in terms of it's clauses is in a very general non-specific sense? Right? You do know that the conservatives at the time were vehmently opposed to those purchases. Right? They perferred to give the barbary pirates tribute as they thought it would be cheaper.

And Johnson's war on poverty did exactly what it was meant to do. It moved millions of people out of poverty into the middle class. No idea why you brought this up..but okay.

The rich in this country get rich because of several reasons:

-Taxpayer provided (Government) Infrastucture.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Research and Development.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Justice system.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Grants.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Contracts.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Military protecting their interests overseas.
-Taxpayer provided (Government) Law enforcement.

So sure. Conservatives have no problem with wealth re-distribution..so long as it goes from poor to rich. The other way..not so much.

Yes, the conservatives of the time wanted to keep paying the tribute, however, the MAIN reasons was that the United States did not have a Navy that was capable of protecting American vessels in the area. Still paying the debt racked up from the War of Independence, conservatives of the time were reluctant to spend even more money to build the ships necessary. None of the leaders of the day WANTED to pay tribute. Jefferson and Washington though, felt that the Navy would have to be built regardless, especially because of the troubles with France and Britian. Luckily, they got their way as the ships became indespensible during the war of 1812.

Johnson's war on poverty was a dismal failure based upon the amount of money spent and additionally many experts believe that it was singularly responsible for the destruction of the African-American family. The reason I brought it up is because although it was based upon what I think was an honest desire, the rates of poverty have remained generally the same in the decades since. Economic indicators have more affect on poverty rates than a massive influx of government give-aways. If the economy is doing well then poverty rates decline. If it does poorly, then poverty rates increase. Simple economics really. When you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to create a single job (as the recent stimulus bill did) are you really getting your money's worth? I don't think so.

Your last point about why the rich stay rich is subjective nonsense. It indicates a belief that the entire system is geared towards keeping a division between rich and poor. The simple fact is that if you work hard, you CAN succeed. If you don't, then you will not. It is not my responsibility and it is not the governments responsibility to suppliment your desire or your lack thereof. To STEAL from me is wrong, I don't care if a man in a mask does it or if the government does it.

I would be VERY happy if the Constitution was interpreted VERY LITERALLY. Sallow, I think your heart is generally good. I really do and I appreciate your well thought out points, but I also think that you hold as truths things that just are not true. We will disagree and so is life.

I disagree with you..but you seem a nice enough fellow.

So cheers.

Have a nice day.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Giving someone a crutch doesnt mean that they wont ever want to walk again. It goes the same for welfare. The notion that helping someone makes them WANT failure is stupidly simple minded

It's not simple-minded to believe that some will take free money and benefits rather then work.

I have renters that collect $3000 every month plus 80% of their rent and utilities is paid by the state.

All they do is swallow their pride, take the handouts, and vote Democrat.

I know Mud. Your personal experience with a few individuals is the way it is all over the world. People dont want to succeed because Mud knows someone who collects welfare

 

[GWV5903]

Giving someone a crutch doesnt mean that they wont ever want to walk again. It goes the same for welfare. The notion that helping someone makes them WANT failure is stupidly simple minded

It's not simple-minded to believe that some will take free money and benefits rather then work.

I have renters that collect $3000 every month plus 80% of their rent and utilities is paid by the state.

All they do is swallow their pride, take the handouts, and vote Democrat.

I know Mud. Your personal experience with a few individuals is the way it is all over the world. People dont want to succeed because Mud knows someone who collects welfare

CC, here is one of many examples..... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuCKkOkQcHY&feature=player_embedded]Judge Judy - This Is Who We Are Supporting With Taxes - YouTube[/ame] why is one time even okay? No one is saying we should destroy these people, but they need to become accountable, the proof is in the fact we can't pay for it now, we will implode from within if we continue down this road....