Foodstamps Are Good

[DiamondDave]

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....

Ahhh.. the welfare class... or lack thereof

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

If his heart was good he wouldn't fall for the usual class-warfare garbage.

Marxism doesn't work on people that don't have envy and malice for others in their hearts.

 

[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.

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

What are you babbling about?

It's human-nature. Make joblessness rewarding and some will choose that over the alternatives.

If you want to destroy a group put them on welfare. Gaza and the West Bank illustrate when unemployment and zero opportunity is all you can look forward to. This is an extreme case. Kind of a Democrat's dream.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

What are you babbling about?

It's human-nature. Make joblessness rewarding and some will choose that over the alternatives.

If you want to destroy a group put them on welfare. Gaza and the West Bank illustrate when unemployment and zero opportunity is all you can look forward to. This is an extreme case. Kind of a Democrat's dream.

Hmmm....So you're saying that some people are actually on welfare that want to succeed? That's impossible! You keep saying that if you are on the Govt dole you dont want to do better...Now you're saying that that is not the case across the board. I think you just had a break through. Congrats!

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

You exhibit a mind laced with falsehoods, stereotyping, bias and ignorance. It is amazing how strict ideology can trump common sense and common decency.

There is no LITERAL interpretation of the Constitution. Interpretation of sections like the General Welfare clause have been debated by wise men, ideologues and scholars in every generation going back to our founders.

You REALLY need to take a course in civics. The law of the jungle is not a civilized nation. A society HAS to have people doing a multitude of jobs for a community and a country to function. If everyone were a hedge fund manager, there would be no hedge funds.



"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

 

[Jarhead]

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.

You exhibit a mind laced with falsehoods, stereotyping, bias and ignorance. It is amazing how strict ideology can trump common sense and common decency.

There is no LITERAL interpretation of the Constitution. Interpretation of sections like the General Welfare clause have been debated by wise men, ideologues and scholars in every generation going back to our founders.

You REALLY need to take a course in civics. The law of the jungle is not a civilized nation. A society HAS to have people doing a multitude of jobs for a community and a country to function. If everyone were a hedge fund manager, there would be no hedge funds.



"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

I like everything you said...agree with much of it...and verry much like the way you presented it.

However, it was ruined by the unecessary insults you threw at your opposition. She/he is an excellent postyer in his/her own right...and although you may disagree wit his/her sentiments, the insults are not warranted.

There are many "debaters" on here from both sides that warrant insults.....but why ruin a good debate with a good debater by insulting them. Nothing is gained by it.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

What are you babbling about?

It's human-nature. Make joblessness rewarding and some will choose that over the alternatives.

If you want to destroy a group put them on welfare. Gaza and the West Bank illustrate when unemployment and zero opportunity is all you can look forward to. This is an extreme case. Kind of a Democrat's dream.

Hmmm....So you're saying that some people are actually on welfare that want to succeed? That's impossible! You keep saying that if you are on the Govt dole you dont want to do better...Now you're saying that that is not the case across the board. I think you just had a break through. Congrats!

Well, stop trying to put words in people's mouths and you won't have that misunderstanding anymore.

 

[ogibillm]

so... just so we're clear

Has anyone provided any evidence that food stamps do not act as an economic stimulus?

 

[mudwhistle]

so... just so we're clear

Has anyone provided any evidence that food stamps do not act as an economic stimulus?

Yes. Maybe reading back will answer your questions.

 

[Full-Auto]

so... just so we're clear

Has anyone provided any evidence that food stamps do not act as an economic stimulus?

Not that I know of. Which leads to another question.

How long should any stimulus be used?


Is it unreasonable to expect results?

 

[mudwhistle]

The problem with it is the simple fact that we are already broke. We can't keep pumping cash into the system that we have to borrow and pay interest on.

So. Food stamps are short term solution but one you can't use for long to improve an economy because eventually the funds will evaporate.

 

[The T]

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

Democrats care about votes. Nothing more.

Indeed and the selling of the treasury for thier power over others that have no real vested interest in the Republic. The Statist is happy to oblige.

 

[ogibillm]

so... just so we're clear

Has anyone provided any evidence that food stamps do not act as an economic stimulus?

Yes. Maybe reading back will answer your questions.

actually, no. nobody has.

especially not you.

 

[ogibillm]

so... just so we're clear

Has anyone provided any evidence that food stamps do not act as an economic stimulus?

Not that I know of. Which leads to another question.

How long should any stimulus be used?


Is it unreasonable to expect results?

only if the expected results are unreasonable.

rest assured that we are seeing returns on the money spent to fund food stamps.

the question we should be asking is where would we be without them?

 

[oreo]

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?

1 in 5 American families are receiving food stamps today--who would much rather get a paycheck and pay for their own food.

This country-- elected an economic moron-determined to rebuild this country from the ground up--a plan of wealth redistribution whom rose to power with perfectly pronounced speeches and Greek columns-- who is now at Martha's Vineyard--enjoying the wine and hanging out with the extremely wealthy elitists of this country.

He is doing this now--while he has put a boot on the throats of small business in this country--who are terrified of this President. Continually threatening the hardest-working--most innovative people in this country with a 39% tax bracket should they grow and expand their businesses.

How's that working for ya now? You voted for it--You got it!

One Big Ass Mistake America.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What are you babbling about?

It's human-nature. Make joblessness rewarding and some will choose that over the alternatives.

If you want to destroy a group put them on welfare. Gaza and the West Bank illustrate when unemployment and zero opportunity is all you can look forward to. This is an extreme case. Kind of a Democrat's dream.

Hmmm....So you're saying that some people are actually on welfare that want to succeed? That's impossible! You keep saying that if you are on the Govt dole you dont want to do better...Now you're saying that that is not the case across the board. I think you just had a break through. Congrats!

Well, stop trying to put words in people's mouths and you won't have that misunderstanding anymore.

I dont, you rant and rave about how much the poor are "getting over" on everyone. You would think they were living like kings on your money. What other conclusion should I gather from the stuff you post? You believe that "Dems only care about votes nothing else" because you believe that these programs hinder peoples ability to succeed. Thats simply not true and a stupid idea that is ofter repeated here. So spare me

 

[Full-Auto]

so... just so we're clear

Has anyone provided any evidence that food stamps do not act as an economic stimulus?

Not that I know of. Which leads to another question.

How long should any stimulus be used?


Is it unreasonable to expect results?

only if the expected results are unreasonable.

rest assured that we are seeing returns on the money spent to fund food stamps.

the question we should be asking is where would we be without them?

Then point out those returns!

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Ask the Governors of Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Texas.

They have low unemployment. They seem to have answers for this.

You've heard them before...but of course you don't believe them.

The solution is stop being anti-business and you create jobs.

Creating an environment in your state that is conducive to job creation in the private-sector is the key.

It's pretty simple really.

You didn't answer the question.

Right now there are about 40M people counting on SNAP.

Even assuming that every state immediately begam operating in the business friendly ways you propose, those same 40 million folks are going to need to eat today and tomorrow.

What do you propose instead of the SNAP program?

Instead of SNAP, we should be running food stamps exactly as WIC is run. All the advocates here keep pointing out that the food stamp program is required for people that need food but forget to mention that much of that program is simply not used in that manner. Everything from candy bars to energy drinks are purchased using the SNAP program and that is simply wrong. It changes the program to an entitlement program where people see that as cash they are 'owed' instead of a simple helping hand.

Benjamin Franklin said it best

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

I have no problem with giving people basic nutritional needs when they are in a tough spot. What I do have an issue with is the entitlement mentality, the ease that the SNAP program can be abused and the fact that the program is structured to make people 'comfortable' instead of providing the best nutritional package to those that need it. WIC, on the other hand, is run extremely well and managed in a way that delivers exactly what people need instead of what they want. If you want something, you need to get off the couch and work for it but if you truly need something then there should be programs out there that can assist you in your needs.

That clip of Judge Judy clearly outlines the attitudes that we are breeding with these programs.

 

[mudwhistle]

Hmmm....So you're saying that some people are actually on welfare that want to succeed? That's impossible! You keep saying that if you are on the Govt dole you dont want to do better...Now you're saying that that is not the case across the board. I think you just had a break through. Congrats!

Well, stop trying to put words in people's mouths and you won't have that misunderstanding anymore.

I dont, you rant and rave about how much the poor are "getting over" on everyone. You would think they were living like kings on your money. What other conclusion should I gather from the stuff you post? You believe that "Dems only care about votes nothing else" because you believe that these programs hinder peoples ability to succeed. Thats simply not true and a stupid idea that is ofter repeated here. So spare me

I'm not ranting and raving. You are.

The people in Washington that call themselves Democrats are primarily concerned with votes.
They've got a good racket. Help the poor. Cool. Problem is the poor are still poor. I see nothing they're doing to end their poverty.

Trillions of dollars spent on the war on poverty and the poor are still here. Changing their habits instead of just giving them a handout is what they need. Help them become self-sufficient. But if they did that what would they need the Democrats for?

Why is it people that have property or own a business vote for Republicans? Because the Republicans aren't always into tossing money at problems. They get out of the way and let the private-sector solve problems through innovation. Reduced red-tape. Make the process easier and less painstaking. Give a business opportunity and they will provide jobs. Give money to someone who never learned how to invest it and all they do is spend it.

The problem is Democrats, or whatever they call themselves, are into bribes. Their ideas are so unpalatable that they have to pay people to vote for them. The GOP gives us the opportunity to succeed while Democrats just give us stuff. I'd rather succeed if given a choice. If I didn't have the will nor the energy to try I'll just sit back and collect a check like the Democrats want. Step up to the community trough and help yourself. Threaten to take away the free lunch and all hell breaks loose. If you run out of money who can you blame for it???? That's right....the GOP.

 

[FA_Q2]

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)

Article 1 section 8:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

If the congress has the power outlined and also has the power to tax to provide for that then they have the power to purchase the required items like bombs from a private company. I have no idea how you would otherwise provide such things. Do you expect the government to materialize bombs? Even if they make the bombs themselves, they would also need to buy the materials. What are you pushing at with such an asinine argument? I cannot believe that you actually think the government cannot purchase anything from a private industry. If you believe that, then how, exactly, do you expect the government to operate on ANY level?