Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welfare Spending Did Go Down for a few years During the Clinton Administration. That NEVER EVER happened under Reagan, Bush or Bush!So you don't know how to read even a basic chart? Did you have some sort of head trauma?
Brown, we know how to read one but we're wondering if you do.
The chart shows a steady increase in welfare spending. You were supposed to be showing where welfare spending was limited, curtailed, cut back, slowed down or something other than increased. You failed.
It's not even a matter of semantics or your infantile grasp of context this time. Is this one of those things where you've dug the hole so deep you figure to just keep digging? Maybe you think the chart is like one of those hidden image pictures and if we stare at it long enough you will be vindicated? Or maybe you're just a true-to-form liberal jackass braying his lies over and over in order to turn them into truths?
Whatever the case, you're definitely mental.
I am shocked that in this day and age there are people like you who don't know the difference between healthy nutrition and foods that cause health problems. I gave you an example when I used the cheeseburger, fries and shake example. In that post I suggested that instead of that unhealthy meal it be substituted for a bowl of vegetable soup, a salad and juice. My selection would cost less and offer nutritional value. The burger, fries and shake meal offers, artery clogging cholesterol and diabetes causing carbs and sugar. Both of these diseases are epidemics in this country by the way and their is no debate about their causes. You and anyone else has the right to eat them as much as you want, or in moderation, or not at all. My argument is that society and the tax payer should no more pay for those negative food items than they should pay for beer and wine, which by the way is healthier than the burger and fries and ice cream shake. If we pay for milk and juice, why not pay for beer and whine? That seems to be your theory.You are misinterpreting my post. Not sure if you are doing it because you are dishonest or stupid.See, you don't want them to have hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or - apparently - cooking oil. I'm betting Kosher thinks the program should be limited to things like hamburger and milk. (How they're supposed to prepare food without cooking oil has me mystified.)
I become more and more curious as to what you think these "alternative healthy meals" that are cheaper than hamburger are, and how they don't include milk.
So you can't cook without cooking oil and can't cook healthy without milk?
Even WIC thinks milk is part of a healthy child's diet. And no, removing any sort of cooking oil from the recipe severely limits what one can prepare, as any competent cook could tell you.
Keep talking, though, Camp, because you're making my point for me. You don't think Food Stamps should cover hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or cooking oil, apparently. What DO you think it should provide? What constitutes the healthy diet you would like to mandate for the millions of people receiving SNAP?
No, you just really want to walk it back because you ran your gums without thinking and now you're embarrassed.
Let's cut to the chase.
What do you think should consistute the acceptable, healthy diet that Food Stamps should cover? Give me the specifics of what you would limit it to and why.
And I very much invite everyone else who advocates playing Food Police, for whatever reason, to answer the same question.
It's more of what shouldn't be allowed to be purchased with food stamps. My list would include: alcohol, junk food -- the pre-packaged crap foods like chips, cookies, sugary cereals, cake mixes, canned frosty, sodas, fake fruit drinks ... things of that nature. If a food stamp recipient wants to purchase these types of foods they can use their own money, not taxpayers money.
Rickets? It's a childhood disease, and it caused not by eating porridges.If you don't mind rickets...
There are endless list of foods that are nutritional and foods that are low on nutrition value or actually harmful. The topic has been covered by educational, government and private entities. Pollock, particularly Alaskan pollock is one of several fishes used to make "imitation" lobster and crab. Whitefish is another one. Both are more nutritional and less expensive than pure lobster or crab. Childrens cereal is another example. There are many kids friendly cereals that limit the amounts of sugar used in the finished product. There are however many cereals that have so much sugar in them that they actually are harmful when consumed over time, leading to all kinds of medical problems. The lists are endless and available in abundance from all kinds of sources, including highly respected medical institutions.I am shocked that in this day and age there are people like you who don't know the difference between healthy nutrition and foods that cause health problems. I gave you an example when I used the cheeseburger, fries and shake example. In that post I suggested that instead of that unhealthy meal it be substituted for a bowl of vegetable soup, a salad and juice. My selection would cost less and offer nutritional value. The burger, fries and shake meal offers, artery clogging cholesterol and diabetes causing carbs and sugar. Both of these diseases are epidemics in this country by the way and their is no debate about their causes. You and anyone else has the right to eat them as much as you want, or in moderation, or not at all. My argument is that society and the tax payer should no more pay for those negative food items than they should pay for beer and wine, which by the way is healthier than the burger and fries and ice cream shake. If we pay for milk and juice, why not pay for beer and whine? That seems to be your theory.You are misinterpreting my post. Not sure if you are doing it because you are dishonest or stupid.So you can't cook without cooking oil and can't cook healthy without milk?
Even WIC thinks milk is part of a healthy child's diet. And no, removing any sort of cooking oil from the recipe severely limits what one can prepare, as any competent cook could tell you.
Keep talking, though, Camp, because you're making my point for me. You don't think Food Stamps should cover hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or cooking oil, apparently. What DO you think it should provide? What constitutes the healthy diet you would like to mandate for the millions of people receiving SNAP?
No, you just really want to walk it back because you ran your gums without thinking and now you're embarrassed.
Let's cut to the chase.
What do you think should consistute the acceptable, healthy diet that Food Stamps should cover? Give me the specifics of what you would limit it to and why.
And I very much invite everyone else who advocates playing Food Police, for whatever reason, to answer the same question.
Ah, yes. The proverbial liberal shock that someone doesn't know which opinion is officially allowed and mandated. Particularly if it allows you to bloviate a bunch more and totally avoid the question.
Still waiting for you to tell me what foods you would have on your approved food stamp list.
Rickets? It's a childhood disease, and it caused not by eating porridges.If you don't mind rickets...
There are endless list of foods that are nutritional and foods that are low on nutrition value or actually harmful. The topic has been covered by educational, government and private entities. Pollock, particularly Alaskan pollock is one of several fishes used to make "imitation" lobster and crab. Whitefish is another one. Both are more nutritional and less expensive than pure lobster or crab. Childrens cereal is another example. There are many kids friendly cereals that limit the amounts of sugar used in the finished product. There are however many cereals that have so much sugar in them that they actually are harmful when consumed over time, leading to all kinds of medical problems. The lists are endless and available in abundance from all kinds of sources, including highly respected medical institutions.I am shocked that in this day and age there are people like you who don't know the difference between healthy nutrition and foods that cause health problems. I gave you an example when I used the cheeseburger, fries and shake example. In that post I suggested that instead of that unhealthy meal it be substituted for a bowl of vegetable soup, a salad and juice. My selection would cost less and offer nutritional value. The burger, fries and shake meal offers, artery clogging cholesterol and diabetes causing carbs and sugar. Both of these diseases are epidemics in this country by the way and their is no debate about their causes. You and anyone else has the right to eat them as much as you want, or in moderation, or not at all. My argument is that society and the tax payer should no more pay for those negative food items than they should pay for beer and wine, which by the way is healthier than the burger and fries and ice cream shake. If we pay for milk and juice, why not pay for beer and whine? That seems to be your theory.You are misinterpreting my post. Not sure if you are doing it because you are dishonest or stupid.Even WIC thinks milk is part of a healthy child's diet. And no, removing any sort of cooking oil from the recipe severely limits what one can prepare, as any competent cook could tell you.
Keep talking, though, Camp, because you're making my point for me. You don't think Food Stamps should cover hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or cooking oil, apparently. What DO you think it should provide? What constitutes the healthy diet you would like to mandate for the millions of people receiving SNAP?
No, you just really want to walk it back because you ran your gums without thinking and now you're embarrassed.
Let's cut to the chase.
What do you think should consistute the acceptable, healthy diet that Food Stamps should cover? Give me the specifics of what you would limit it to and why.
And I very much invite everyone else who advocates playing Food Police, for whatever reason, to answer the same question.
Ah, yes. The proverbial liberal shock that someone doesn't know which opinion is officially allowed and mandated. Particularly if it allows you to bloviate a bunch more and totally avoid the question.
Still waiting for you to tell me what foods you would have on your approved food stamp list.
You can fairly make the argument that steaks and lobster can be used in economic ways, but you can not justify foods that create negative health results and increased medical cost being paid by the government for persons on public assistance. An apple or orange is healthier than a candy bar. What is so hard to understand about that.
I have repeatedly answered your question. In some cases with a good bit of detail. What exactly are you looking for? Do you expect me to give you a long list of foods that could belong on a list and a long list of foods that could be off a list? How about if you answer whether you think tax payers should pay for candy bars, ice cream and soda pop. Those would be the first things I put on an unavailable list.There are endless list of foods that are nutritional and foods that are low on nutrition value or actually harmful. The topic has been covered by educational, government and private entities. Pollock, particularly Alaskan pollock is one of several fishes used to make "imitation" lobster and crab. Whitefish is another one. Both are more nutritional and less expensive than pure lobster or crab. Childrens cereal is another example. There are many kids friendly cereals that limit the amounts of sugar used in the finished product. There are however many cereals that have so much sugar in them that they actually are harmful when consumed over time, leading to all kinds of medical problems. The lists are endless and available in abundance from all kinds of sources, including highly respected medical institutions.I am shocked that in this day and age there are people like you who don't know the difference between healthy nutrition and foods that cause health problems. I gave you an example when I used the cheeseburger, fries and shake example. In that post I suggested that instead of that unhealthy meal it be substituted for a bowl of vegetable soup, a salad and juice. My selection would cost less and offer nutritional value. The burger, fries and shake meal offers, artery clogging cholesterol and diabetes causing carbs and sugar. Both of these diseases are epidemics in this country by the way and their is no debate about their causes. You and anyone else has the right to eat them as much as you want, or in moderation, or not at all. My argument is that society and the tax payer should no more pay for those negative food items than they should pay for beer and wine, which by the way is healthier than the burger and fries and ice cream shake. If we pay for milk and juice, why not pay for beer and whine? That seems to be your theory.You are misinterpreting my post. Not sure if you are doing it because you are dishonest or stupid.
No, you just really want to walk it back because you ran your gums without thinking and now you're embarrassed.
Let's cut to the chase.
What do you think should consistute the acceptable, healthy diet that Food Stamps should cover? Give me the specifics of what you would limit it to and why.
And I very much invite everyone else who advocates playing Food Police, for whatever reason, to answer the same question.
Ah, yes. The proverbial liberal shock that someone doesn't know which opinion is officially allowed and mandated. Particularly if it allows you to bloviate a bunch more and totally avoid the question.
Still waiting for you to tell me what foods you would have on your approved food stamp list.
You can fairly make the argument that steaks and lobster can be used in economic ways, but you can not justify foods that create negative health results and increased medical cost being paid by the government for persons on public assistance. An apple or orange is healthier than a candy bar. What is so hard to understand about that.
In other words, you have no intention of ever answering the question instead of throwing up a wall of blather. You just think it's a spiffy idea for government to control people's lives, and you'll just wait around for someone else to do the thinking and hand you some talking points to enthuse about.
Got it. Thank you. Dismissed.
Nah, your just an effing moron that can't read a chart. Hint, the bottom line indicates YEARS. Ask a five year old child to show you the parts in the chart where welfare did not go up for YEARS.So you don't know how to read even a basic chart? Did you have some sort of head trauma?
Brown, we know how to read one but we're wondering if you do.
The chart shows a steady increase in welfare spending. You were supposed to be showing where welfare spending was limited, curtailed, cut back, slowed down or something other than increased. You failed.
It's not even a matter of semantics or your infantile grasp of context this time. Is this one of those things where you've dug the hole so deep you figure to just keep digging? Maybe you think the chart is like one of those hidden image pictures and if we stare at it long enough you will be vindicated? Or maybe you're just a true-to-form liberal jackass braying his lies over and over in order to turn them into truths?
Whatever the case, you're definitely mental.
Here's a guy who tried to live for a couple weeks on $4 a day...only a little less than most SNAP recipients who often have to go for months on that amount in this jobless "recovery":
5 things one executive learned from spending only 4 a day on food for 2 weeks - Yahoo Finance
Yep. I watched a similar video about a college professor that got his students to do this as a project. They lived on a diet. Of hot dogs, bologna,bread, ramen noodles,oranges and lettuce.
It can can be done in a pinch.
Yep. I watched a similar video about a college professor that got his students to do this as a project. They lived on a diet. Of hot dogs, bologna,bread, ramen noodles,oranges and lettuce.
It can can be done in a pinch.
In a pinch yeah, but imagine that's your diet for months or years. Without Walmart and other discount stores, there would be little recourse for some of these people to start stealing food, escalating into armed robberies. I see no reason why benefits can't be capped like unemployment...two years at $10 a day. That way a person can eat nutritious food that is healthy and produces energy....after two weeks the guy in my link was already feeling sick.
But back to steak and seafood. Just priced it last night. Steak at Albertsons 6.50 pkg of two and also buy one get one. Crab legs 6.99 a pound, schrimp on sale 4.99 a pound.
That's not that bad IMO.
Scurvy was common among sailors, pirates and others aboard ships at sea longer than perishable fruits and vegetables could be stored (subsisting instead only on cured meats & dried grains.) Also among soldiers & others similarly deprived of these foods for extended periods.Rickets? It's a childhood disease, and it caused not by eating porridges.If you don't mind rickets...
