Republicans are ignorant about the most basic FACTS about welfare in this country

[Andylusion]

Lol talk about a straw man, but your attempt at this is rather pathetic.

Out of all the factors examined by this study, none of them is because of too much food. There is no issue of SNAP recipients buying too much food.

The fact of the matter is that junk food is cheap. That is why they buy it. They can't afford much else.

This is another problem I have. For the moment, let's ignore the fact that there are research reports where people were put on controlled diets and still gained weight.

But before we even get to that... where in the heck does one get this crap idea that 'junk food is cheap'? Cheap compared to what?

You can't possibly mean comparing McDonald's to a Super Market. You realize that for the price a large fry, you can buy a 5 lbs bag of potatoes? For the price of a burger, you can buy 3 lbs of ground beef?

And for the price of a large bag of potato chips, you could buy two bags of potatoes. And certainly not a large soda drink, which you could buy two 2-liter bottles of soda at the store, or any other drink.

Seriously, this is one of the more wacky claims I see all the time. How in the heck, do people claim this? Based on what comparison? Have you never been in a grocery store?

 

[Billy000]

You know I find it interesting none of you have the balls to even acknowledge the facts I presented about SNAP.

1. Lie.

2. Somewhat true, but generally it's because of leftist causes. You scream and yell about corporations getting money, then turn around and support giving money to corporations. Blame yourself.

3. True, and good. Less money given to government, the better off all of us are.

4. Lie.

5. Lie.

6. True, and good. Less money given to government, the better off we all are.

First, the lies.... A tax deducation, is not a subsidy. Everyone, as in EVERYONE, in this country gets taxes deductions. If a tax deduction is a "subsidy", then absolutely every single freakin person in this entire country is being subsidized.

Which renders the term meaningless, since there is no one not subsidized.

Second, all those examples you list where corporations pay less tax, are good things. I *WANT* corporations to pay less tax. I want them buying stuff, investing stuff, and growing wealth.

I don't them paying that money to government, where it is given to political kick backs, and Wealthy CEOs of say Solyndra walk off with millions in tax money providing nothing.

Your system... bad. My system... good. Ford provided me a car. What did your tax payer funded Solyndra provide me? Nothing but a tax bill.

I would love proof as to what makes what I said "lies". Yet another feeble response and no mention of what I said about SNAP.

I believe I jumped on that too quickly. Typically when a people start screaming about subsidies, they end up talking about a tax break, which is *NOT* a subisidy.

In this particular case, your source may have actually been talking about real subsidies, where money is taxed away from one group, and given to another.

In which case, you are preaching to the choir. All of us on the right, are completely against subsidies..... ALL subsidies. I want them ALL gone.

The difference between us, and you.... is that we are ideologically consistent. We are against *ALL* subsides.... that means everything from giving millions to Solydra.... to giving a lazy bum a SNAP card.

See, we're not tied up by ratios, or percentages. This is why none of us bothered to talk about your little factoids about SNAP. It doesn't matter to us.

Let's say that I come to your home, and shove a gun in your face, and demand $100, and then as I leave, I give the $100 to a homeless guy.

Is that right or wrong? Of course it's wrong. Well what if I demand $1,000? Still wrong. Yeah but what if I only demand 10¢? That's a very small percentage. Nope, still wrong!

Now what if I find someone else, like say a politician in government, to do the same thing? That's all still wrong. All of it.

So how much more, or how much less, any particular group gets in Federal Funds, doesn't matter to me. Its all wrong.

Now back to the Corporate Welfare. Let's look at exactly what we're talking about.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Corporate-Welfare-Programs-BY-Agency1.jpg
thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Corporate-Welfare-Programs-BY-Agency-21.jpg

Department of Agriculture.

Agriculture Marketing Services, promotes "Organic Foods"
Resources Conservation Service, pays people to increase carbon absorption (I can't make this stuff up), and protect animals like the Gopher Tortoise.
Farm Security and Rural Investment, giving low interest government backed loans for among other things, green energy business.
Commodity Credit Corporation, which buys commodities for the purpose of stabilizing prices (created by FDR in 1933, by executive order. Sound familiar?)
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, which originally was designed to cover major events like the dust bowl, but now covers pretty much everything, from 'too much rain', to frost bite.
Rural Business and Co-Operative Service, which promotes Co-Ops, and Biomass fuels. (yeah, I don't know how those two went together either.... but it's government)
Rural Electrification, which of course promotes getting electricity to all those completely un-powered rural towns and villages, which have no power at all....... since the 1930s when this program was created.....

Department of Commerce

Minority Business Development Agency.... any questions?
International Trade, subsidizing international trade, which is a form of protectionism, which I'm against. There are a few right-wingers who disagree, but mostly it's the left screaming about trade.
Fisheries, unfortunately are unavoidable. Until we privatize ocean into plots, as long as the Fisheries are a common ground, without regulation and control of the fishing industry, they will fish until the resource is used up. Tragedy of the Commons.
All the rest of are grants to business.... which I'm against.

Department of Energy

Energy Supply Subsidies.... I couldn't find out what that refers to. I assume it's the loan guarantee for energy producers, which includes everything from Nuclear power plants, to Wind Turbines and Solar Panels. I'm against all of those.
Fossil Energy Research and Dev, which is R&D on Carbon Capture, and CO2 reduction.
Coal Research, goes to the clean coal initiative, that Bush canceled because it had produced nothing, and Obama brought right back.
Hydrogen and the Clean Car.... more alternative green energy. Granted this one was Bush's idea, but it's still the same green energy crap.

Department of Housing and Urban Dev..... Do I even need to outline the leftist crap in this one?

Department of Transportation.

Grants in Aid to Airports.... Let them close if they are not profitable.
Commercial Space Transport.... why are we funding this? Maybe there is a reason.
Payments to Air Carriers to fly to places that are not profitable to fly to.
Amtrak, High Speed Rail, and R&D.... Need I say more?
Guaranteed Loan to Ship Builders.... completely against that.
Ocean Freight Differential... Not sure. Could not figure out what that was.

Corp Public Broadcasting... against.
International Development... against.
Small Business Admin.... against.
Overseas Private Investment... against.
National Institute of Health.... against.

So just the Department of Agriculture alone, was $43.7 Billion of that $91.9 Billion, and which group of people tried to eliminate Farm subsidies? Right-wing Republicans. It certainly wasn't the left trying to kill of Biomass Fuel Subsidies. And look at some of those programs..... Organic Food marketing, Co-Op Support, Biomass fuels, Green Energy grants, Paying people for Carbon Absorption? Do those sound like Right-Wing Free-Market Capitalist programs? Buying up commodities for price stability?

I can remember, back in the early 2000s, Rush Limbaugh screaming about the Farm Subsidies bill, and yelling about all the money that would be blown to wealthy rich corporations.

Fast Forward 10 years, and now here you are complaining about the subsidies given to Corporations, and nearly half of it, is all from that Farm Bill.

You people on the left, can't support a big government money give away, and then turn around and complain about government money being given away. That's called hypocrisy. "I support green energy grants!" tick tick tick.... "Look at all the subsidies to energy companies!"

Now, to be fair, there are a few things that Right-wingers would likely support. Like the R&D spending for the military, which does benefit private business, and possibly the Foreign Military Financing (which I'm largely against).

But all of the things Right-Wingers may support, combined, would only be about $16 Billion, of that $91 Billion. All the rest of it, is all left wing crap, and many were started by FDR.

You are so full of shit. Maybe you are against subsidies, but the rightwing in general obviously aren't considering it is republicans who, more than democrats, push subsidies.

It is also moronic to compare a homeless man robbing you to people on food stamps. Most people on food stamps have jobs (very low income) and have at least one dependent to take care of. You want people off food stamps? Then raise the minimum wage. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Billy000]

Lol talk about a straw man, but your attempt at this is rather pathetic.

Out of all the factors examined by this study, none of them is because of too much food. There is no issue of SNAP recipients buying too much food.

The fact of the matter is that junk food is cheap. That is why they buy it. They can't afford much else.

This is another problem I have. For the moment, let's ignore the fact that there are research reports where people were put on controlled diets and still gained weight.

But before we even get to that... where in the heck does one get this crap idea that 'junk food is cheap'? Cheap compared to what?

You can't possibly mean comparing McDonald's to a Super Market. You realize that for the price a large fry, you can buy a 5 lbs bag of potatoes? For the price of a burger, you can buy 3 lbs of ground beef?

And for the price of a large bag of potato chips, you could buy two bags of potatoes. And certainly not a large soda drink, which you could buy two 2-liter bottles of soda at the store, or any other drink.

Seriously, this is one of the more wacky claims I see all the time. How in the heck, do people claim this? Based on what comparison? Have you never been in a grocery store?

Well gee I already demonstrated in the OP that too much good is not the problem. Junk food is cheaper and many recipients eat shortly after midnight. Many of them shop as soon as they get another payment. That is why they gains weight. That is in the report of Scientific American.


Also, all this yammering you are doing about diet does not include dairy, fruits, veggies, and breads.

 

[Londoner]

Tell me smart ass, what did the government do to EARN the funds expended to develop and place those satellites in orbit. Oh that's right, they just confiscate from business and individuals, Government produces nothing they take, they destroy wealth and pathetic weasels like you try to tout their pseudo accomplishments like they are indispensable, when in fact with very few exceptions of the federal governments functions, we would be much better off without them.

Like you, Marx was also an idealist. He thought we could exist without the State. He thought that the state was merely the place where property owners went to get free money and monopoly power. Right? The point of lobbying is to access the centralizing power of government. (You know how much money government hands out to corporations, right?)

It's more than just direct subsidies. The entire system of finance capital is a scam. The fed gives the banks money at less than 1%; then the banks finance the venture capitalist, who then brings a product to market, but not before getting the nanny state to build a monopoly fence around it (see Patent Protection). (You understand the Patent System right? This is where the private sector gets the State to protect their investments; then they take channel some of the ill-begotten gains into Rush Limbaugh and Heritage, which agitates the morons about the virtue of free markets. It's actually kind of funny)

But yes ... if you disable the State's ability to hand out fiat capital and monopolies, you no longer need the state, thought Marx.

But...

If the State didn't exist, the property system would build it. Think about it. If you're Exxon, wouldn't you rather transfer the cost of protecting your Iraqi oil fields to the Pentagon budget? And if you're Walmart, who depends on suppliers from all over the globe, many residing in unstable places... Wouldn't you rather have big government put military bases on every continent and ships in every ocean so as to stabilize your global trade routes?

Put another way. Capitalism is so efficient that it burns through local resources in a hurry. Once the oil runs out in Texas, you need Big Military to clear the way in the Persian Gulf, especially if the people living atop your resources are evil. But it's not just oil. It's the entire universe of global resources and labor.

You appreciate Reagan, right? His big government cost 3x the Carter government. Reagan increased our military presence all over the globe. He used Big Government, in part, to create the global market system - to ensure that communism didn't nationalize vital resource markets. Big Government financed regimes that supported the resource needs of our capitalists. Do you know how much money our government gives to foreign nations? Do you know why? Do you know which interests they are protecting in which regions? Do your news sources ever fill in these details?

The market loves big brother's protective hands. This is why our great and noble John Galts flock to DC for subsidies and regulatory favors. If Big Government didn't exist, the market would build it. Once you realize how much profit comes from centralized power, there's no fighting it.

Human nature wants what it wants.

 

[GWV5903]

Income tax credit, a buddy of mine pays almost no income tax, but gets over 6 thousand back on taxes. So your argument is ignorant.

The sad truth is the number of Americans that cheat the system that make less than a $100K a year...

Their numbers are in the millions...

This moron is worried about tax breaks for tax paying corporations?

Try realizing the number of Americans that steal like thieves with out any fear of reprisal?

The number of Tax Cheats I have met that pay ZERO and receive huge refunds is in the 300 to 400 range and hell I am only one individual...

Is that avi of Billy000 supposed to signify someone attempting to revive his brain? I think it's safe to say that it is too late...

 

[FA_Q2]

You know I find it interesting none of you have the balls to even acknowledge the facts I presented about SNAP.

I would love proof as to what makes what I said "lies". Yet another feeble response and no mention of what I said about SNAP.

I believe I jumped on that too quickly. Typically when a people start screaming about subsidies, they end up talking about a tax break, which is *NOT* a subisidy.

In this particular case, your source may have actually been talking about real subsidies, where money is taxed away from one group, and given to another.

In which case, you are preaching to the choir. All of us on the right, are completely against subsidies..... ALL subsidies. I want them ALL gone.

The difference between us, and you.... is that we are ideologically consistent. We are against *ALL* subsides.... that means everything from giving millions to Solydra.... to giving a lazy bum a SNAP card.

See, we're not tied up by ratios, or percentages. This is why none of us bothered to talk about your little factoids about SNAP. It doesn't matter to us.

Let's say that I come to your home, and shove a gun in your face, and demand $100, and then as I leave, I give the $100 to a homeless guy.

Is that right or wrong? Of course it's wrong. Well what if I demand $1,000? Still wrong. Yeah but what if I only demand 10¢? That's a very small percentage. Nope, still wrong!

Now what if I find someone else, like say a politician in government, to do the same thing? That's all still wrong. All of it.

So how much more, or how much less, any particular group gets in Federal Funds, doesn't matter to me. Its all wrong.

Now back to the Corporate Welfare. Let's look at exactly what we're talking about.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Corporate-Welfare-Programs-BY-Agency1.jpg
thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Corporate-Welfare-Programs-BY-Agency-21.jpg

Department of Agriculture.

Agriculture Marketing Services, promotes "Organic Foods"
Resources Conservation Service, pays people to increase carbon absorption (I can't make this stuff up), and protect animals like the Gopher Tortoise.
Farm Security and Rural Investment, giving low interest government backed loans for among other things, green energy business.
Commodity Credit Corporation, which buys commodities for the purpose of stabilizing prices (created by FDR in 1933, by executive order. Sound familiar?)
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, which originally was designed to cover major events like the dust bowl, but now covers pretty much everything, from 'too much rain', to frost bite.
Rural Business and Co-Operative Service, which promotes Co-Ops, and Biomass fuels. (yeah, I don't know how those two went together either.... but it's government)
Rural Electrification, which of course promotes getting electricity to all those completely un-powered rural towns and villages, which have no power at all....... since the 1930s when this program was created.....

Department of Commerce

Minority Business Development Agency.... any questions?
International Trade, subsidizing international trade, which is a form of protectionism, which I'm against. There are a few right-wingers who disagree, but mostly it's the left screaming about trade.
Fisheries, unfortunately are unavoidable. Until we privatize ocean into plots, as long as the Fisheries are a common ground, without regulation and control of the fishing industry, they will fish until the resource is used up. Tragedy of the Commons.
All the rest of are grants to business.... which I'm against.

Department of Energy

Energy Supply Subsidies.... I couldn't find out what that refers to. I assume it's the loan guarantee for energy producers, which includes everything from Nuclear power plants, to Wind Turbines and Solar Panels. I'm against all of those.
Fossil Energy Research and Dev, which is R&D on Carbon Capture, and CO2 reduction.
Coal Research, goes to the clean coal initiative, that Bush canceled because it had produced nothing, and Obama brought right back.
Hydrogen and the Clean Car.... more alternative green energy. Granted this one was Bush's idea, but it's still the same green energy crap.

Department of Housing and Urban Dev..... Do I even need to outline the leftist crap in this one?

Department of Transportation.

Grants in Aid to Airports.... Let them close if they are not profitable.
Commercial Space Transport.... why are we funding this? Maybe there is a reason.
Payments to Air Carriers to fly to places that are not profitable to fly to.
Amtrak, High Speed Rail, and R&D.... Need I say more?
Guaranteed Loan to Ship Builders.... completely against that.
Ocean Freight Differential... Not sure. Could not figure out what that was.

Corp Public Broadcasting... against.
International Development... against.
Small Business Admin.... against.
Overseas Private Investment... against.
National Institute of Health.... against.

So just the Department of Agriculture alone, was $43.7 Billion of that $91.9 Billion, and which group of people tried to eliminate Farm subsidies? Right-wing Republicans. It certainly wasn't the left trying to kill of Biomass Fuel Subsidies. And look at some of those programs..... Organic Food marketing, Co-Op Support, Biomass fuels, Green Energy grants, Paying people for Carbon Absorption? Do those sound like Right-Wing Free-Market Capitalist programs? Buying up commodities for price stability?

I can remember, back in the early 2000s, Rush Limbaugh screaming about the Farm Subsidies bill, and yelling about all the money that would be blown to wealthy rich corporations.

Fast Forward 10 years, and now here you are complaining about the subsidies given to Corporations, and nearly half of it, is all from that Farm Bill.

You people on the left, can't support a big government money give away, and then turn around and complain about government money being given away. That's called hypocrisy. "I support green energy grants!" tick tick tick.... "Look at all the subsidies to energy companies!"

Now, to be fair, there are a few things that Right-wingers would likely support. Like the R&D spending for the military, which does benefit private business, and possibly the Foreign Military Financing (which I'm largely against).

But all of the things Right-Wingers may support, combined, would only be about $16 Billion, of that $91 Billion. All the rest of it, is all left wing crap, and many were started by FDR.

You are so full of shit. Maybe you are against subsidies, but the rightwing in general obviously aren't considering it is republicans who, more than democrats, push subsidies.

It is also moronic to compare a homeless man robbing you to people on food stamps. Most people on food stamps have jobs (very low income) and have at least one dependent to take care of. You want people off food stamps? Then raise the minimum wage. You can't have it both ways.

He shows you a rather simple list of those subsidies that you are bitching about and how MOST of them are left wing bullshit programs and this is the best that you can come up with.


You have the gall to say that he is full of shit – that is truly epic. There is no way that you can be this ignorant – you wouldn’t understand how to turn your computer on.

 

[FA_Q2]

Income tax credit, a buddy of mine pays almost no income tax, but gets over 6 thousand back on taxes. So your argument is ignorant.

The sad truth is the number of Americans that cheat the system that make less than a $100K a year...

Their numbers are in the millions...

This moron is worried about tax breaks for tax paying corporations?

Try realizing the number of Americans that steal like thieves with out any fear of reprisal?

The number of Tax Cheats I have met that pay ZERO and receive huge refunds is in the 300 to 400 range and hell I am only one individual...

Is that avi of Billy000 supposed to signify someone attempting to revive his brain? I think it's safe to say that it is too late...

Well, they really are not tax cheats. That is the system that we have set up. It more than allows for this - it codifies and protects it.
It is severely broken. NO ONE should be getting cash back from taxes - that is NOT what they are supposed to accomplish. The left with their incessant need to socially engineer every single decision that you make has caused this nightmare. It is time for the government to give up controlling the public and simply enforce basic law.

That is fat to much to ask for in this current political system though.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's not my fault you don't understand simple nuance. Republicans widely and historically have always supported it. Only some democrats have. Not only that, but democrats are honest about welfare for the poor. Republicans aren't.

You know I am right.

I know you're an idiot. Beyond that I know you can't focus on a coherent point. Beyond that I know you can't defend a position without blaming others for a similar only different position, and be able to differentiate between the two. Beyond that I know you can't think on your own without talking points.

Step up little boy and post your nuance. Let the world see your devine intellectual prowess. I am anxiously awaiting your epic reply! It should prove to be mind altering.

You're full of shit. You lost the argument and you know it.

Ad hominem isn't an argument.

 

[Andylusion]

You know I find it interesting none of you have the balls to even acknowledge the facts I presented about SNAP.

I would love proof as to what makes what I said "lies". Yet another feeble response and no mention of what I said about SNAP.

I believe I jumped on that too quickly. Typically when a people start screaming about subsidies, they end up talking about a tax break, which is *NOT* a subisidy.

In this particular case, your source may have actually been talking about real subsidies, where money is taxed away from one group, and given to another.

In which case, you are preaching to the choir. All of us on the right, are completely against subsidies..... ALL subsidies. I want them ALL gone.

The difference between us, and you.... is that we are ideologically consistent. We are against *ALL* subsides.... that means everything from giving millions to Solydra.... to giving a lazy bum a SNAP card.

See, we're not tied up by ratios, or percentages. This is why none of us bothered to talk about your little factoids about SNAP. It doesn't matter to us.

Let's say that I come to your home, and shove a gun in your face, and demand $100, and then as I leave, I give the $100 to a homeless guy.

Is that right or wrong? Of course it's wrong. Well what if I demand $1,000? Still wrong. Yeah but what if I only demand 10¢? That's a very small percentage. Nope, still wrong!

Now what if I find someone else, like say a politician in government, to do the same thing? That's all still wrong. All of it.

So how much more, or how much less, any particular group gets in Federal Funds, doesn't matter to me. Its all wrong.

Now back to the Corporate Welfare. Let's look at exactly what we're talking about.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Corporate-Welfare-Programs-BY-Agency1.jpg
thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Corporate-Welfare-Programs-BY-Agency-21.jpg

Department of Agriculture.

Agriculture Marketing Services, promotes "Organic Foods"
Resources Conservation Service, pays people to increase carbon absorption (I can't make this stuff up), and protect animals like the Gopher Tortoise.
Farm Security and Rural Investment, giving low interest government backed loans for among other things, green energy business.
Commodity Credit Corporation, which buys commodities for the purpose of stabilizing prices (created by FDR in 1933, by executive order. Sound familiar?)
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, which originally was designed to cover major events like the dust bowl, but now covers pretty much everything, from 'too much rain', to frost bite.
Rural Business and Co-Operative Service, which promotes Co-Ops, and Biomass fuels. (yeah, I don't know how those two went together either.... but it's government)
Rural Electrification, which of course promotes getting electricity to all those completely un-powered rural towns and villages, which have no power at all....... since the 1930s when this program was created.....

Department of Commerce

Minority Business Development Agency.... any questions?
International Trade, subsidizing international trade, which is a form of protectionism, which I'm against. There are a few right-wingers who disagree, but mostly it's the left screaming about trade.
Fisheries, unfortunately are unavoidable. Until we privatize ocean into plots, as long as the Fisheries are a common ground, without regulation and control of the fishing industry, they will fish until the resource is used up. Tragedy of the Commons.
All the rest of are grants to business.... which I'm against.

Department of Energy

Energy Supply Subsidies.... I couldn't find out what that refers to. I assume it's the loan guarantee for energy producers, which includes everything from Nuclear power plants, to Wind Turbines and Solar Panels. I'm against all of those.
Fossil Energy Research and Dev, which is R&D on Carbon Capture, and CO2 reduction.
Coal Research, goes to the clean coal initiative, that Bush canceled because it had produced nothing, and Obama brought right back.
Hydrogen and the Clean Car.... more alternative green energy. Granted this one was Bush's idea, but it's still the same green energy crap.

Department of Housing and Urban Dev..... Do I even need to outline the leftist crap in this one?

Department of Transportation.

Grants in Aid to Airports.... Let them close if they are not profitable.
Commercial Space Transport.... why are we funding this? Maybe there is a reason.
Payments to Air Carriers to fly to places that are not profitable to fly to.
Amtrak, High Speed Rail, and R&D.... Need I say more?
Guaranteed Loan to Ship Builders.... completely against that.
Ocean Freight Differential... Not sure. Could not figure out what that was.

Corp Public Broadcasting... against.
International Development... against.
Small Business Admin.... against.
Overseas Private Investment... against.
National Institute of Health.... against.

So just the Department of Agriculture alone, was $43.7 Billion of that $91.9 Billion, and which group of people tried to eliminate Farm subsidies? Right-wing Republicans. It certainly wasn't the left trying to kill of Biomass Fuel Subsidies. And look at some of those programs..... Organic Food marketing, Co-Op Support, Biomass fuels, Green Energy grants, Paying people for Carbon Absorption? Do those sound like Right-Wing Free-Market Capitalist programs? Buying up commodities for price stability?

I can remember, back in the early 2000s, Rush Limbaugh screaming about the Farm Subsidies bill, and yelling about all the money that would be blown to wealthy rich corporations.

Fast Forward 10 years, and now here you are complaining about the subsidies given to Corporations, and nearly half of it, is all from that Farm Bill.

You people on the left, can't support a big government money give away, and then turn around and complain about government money being given away. That's called hypocrisy. "I support green energy grants!" tick tick tick.... "Look at all the subsidies to energy companies!"

Now, to be fair, there are a few things that Right-wingers would likely support. Like the R&D spending for the military, which does benefit private business, and possibly the Foreign Military Financing (which I'm largely against).

But all of the things Right-Wingers may support, combined, would only be about $16 Billion, of that $91 Billion. All the rest of it, is all left wing crap, and many were started by FDR.

You are so full of shit. Maybe you are against subsidies, but the rightwing in general obviously aren't considering it is republicans who, more than democrats, push subsidies.

It is also moronic to compare a homeless man robbing you to people on food stamps. Most people on food stamps have jobs (very low income) and have at least one dependent to take care of. You want people off food stamps? Then raise the minimum wage. You can't have it both ways.

You claim that the "right-wing" push subsidies.

Well... You posted a link. On that link, I just went through all the subsidies. Which of on that list of subsidies, a list that provided by the very link you cited, would you claim is a right-wing support subsidies?

Organic foods? Ethanol? Alternative Energy Grants / Loans? Amtrak? High Speed Rail Research? Support for Co-Ops? Certainly not HUD, right? We've been fighting HUD for decades.

Which one do you suggest is the "right-wing subsidy"?

I listed two. Military R&D, which I think is good, and needed. One that some right-wing people might be in favor of, is Foreign military financing. I'm against that.

But other than those, which ones do you suggest the Right-wing is generally in favor of?

Back to food stamps....

Again, say I'm a working person, with a full time job, and I come to your house, shove a gun in your face, and demand $100, and on my way out, I find another working person with a full time job, and give them the $100.

Is that wrong or right? Did the fact that we have full time jobs, change the moral standing of my action?

Again, replace me, with the Federal Government, stealing the money and giving it to working people. Is that now suddenly morally right?

No. It's still wrong.

And as far as the minimum wage... ok fine let's raise the minimum wage.

Just understand, that when you do this, two things will happen. First, a ton of people are going to lose their jobs. Every single time you raise the minimum wage, jobs are lost.

How much in food stamps will they need when they are earning ZERO?

Second, the price of goods and services will increase in relation to the minimum wage. Meaning the people who keep their jobs, will still not be able to afford much more than they can now.

The minimum wage throughout all history, and all the world, has never had good results.

 

[Andylusion]

Lol talk about a straw man, but your attempt at this is rather pathetic.

Out of all the factors examined by this study, none of them is because of too much food. There is no issue of SNAP recipients buying too much food.

The fact of the matter is that junk food is cheap. That is why they buy it. They can't afford much else.

This is another problem I have. For the moment, let's ignore the fact that there are research reports where people were put on controlled diets and still gained weight.

But before we even get to that... where in the heck does one get this crap idea that 'junk food is cheap'? Cheap compared to what?

You can't possibly mean comparing McDonald's to a Super Market. You realize that for the price a large fry, you can buy a 5 lbs bag of potatoes? For the price of a burger, you can buy 3 lbs of ground beef?

And for the price of a large bag of potato chips, you could buy two bags of potatoes. And certainly not a large soda drink, which you could buy two 2-liter bottles of soda at the store, or any other drink.

Seriously, this is one of the more wacky claims I see all the time. How in the heck, do people claim this? Based on what comparison? Have you never been in a grocery store?

Well gee I already demonstrated in the OP that too much good is not the problem. Junk food is cheaper and many recipients eat shortly after midnight. Many of them shop as soon as they get another payment. That is why they gains weight. That is in the report of Scientific American.


Also, all this yammering you are doing about diet does not include dairy, fruits, veggies, and breads.

So they gain weight because they eat after midnight, and shop when they get another payment.

I can solve one of those, by not giving them a payment. They can shop whenever they work and earn a paycheck.

The other one.... What exactly do you propose to do to solve that? I myself, eat after midnight, and I'm not collecting any SNAP.

As far as the yammering about diet.... Well you were the one who referred to "junk food". These diets eliminated "junk food".

If you eliminate "junk food" and people still gain weight, then obviously it's not "junk food" that is the problem, but rather choices about what people eat in general, not just "junk food is cheap, and that's the problem".

 

[Billy000]

This is another problem I have. For the moment, let's ignore the fact that there are research reports where people were put on controlled diets and still gained weight.

But before we even get to that... where in the heck does one get this crap idea that 'junk food is cheap'? Cheap compared to what?

You can't possibly mean comparing McDonald's to a Super Market. You realize that for the price a large fry, you can buy a 5 lbs bag of potatoes? For the price of a burger, you can buy 3 lbs of ground beef?

And for the price of a large bag of potato chips, you could buy two bags of potatoes. And certainly not a large soda drink, which you could buy two 2-liter bottles of soda at the store, or any other drink.

Seriously, this is one of the more wacky claims I see all the time. How in the heck, do people claim this? Based on what comparison? Have you never been in a grocery store?

Well gee I already demonstrated in the OP that too much good is not the problem. Junk food is cheaper and many recipients eat shortly after midnight. Many of them shop as soon as they get another payment. That is why they gains weight. That is in the report of Scientific American.


Also, all this yammering you are doing about diet does not include dairy, fruits, veggies, and breads.

So they gain weight because they eat after midnight, and shop when they get another payment.

I can solve one of those, by not giving them a payment. They can shop whenever they work and earn a paycheck.

The other one.... What exactly do you propose to do to solve that? I myself, eat after midnight, and I'm not collecting any SNAP.

As far as the yammering about diet.... Well you were the one who referred to "junk food". These diets eliminated "junk food".

If you eliminate "junk food" and people still gain weight, then obviously it's not "junk food" that is the problem, but rather choices about what people eat in general, not just "junk food is cheap, and that's the problem".

Based on their income and the amount of money they receive, you still haven't come with a logical argument as to why they shouldn't get it. Enough of your bullshit analogies. It is a pathetic attempt at an argument.


You claimed food stamp recipients could easily afford food because of your idiotic logic about potatoes. I made it obvious that these people can't afford all of the food groups. If they could, they would have better functioning bodies which means less fat storage and faster metabolism. IF you understood nutrition, you would have a clue but obviously you don't.

 

[Andylusion]

Well gee I already demonstrated in the OP that too much good is not the problem. Junk food is cheaper and many recipients eat shortly after midnight. Many of them shop as soon as they get another payment. That is why they gains weight. That is in the report of Scientific American.


Also, all this yammering you are doing about diet does not include dairy, fruits, veggies, and breads.

So they gain weight because they eat after midnight, and shop when they get another payment.

I can solve one of those, by not giving them a payment. They can shop whenever they work and earn a paycheck.

The other one.... What exactly do you propose to do to solve that? I myself, eat after midnight, and I'm not collecting any SNAP.

As far as the yammering about diet.... Well you were the one who referred to "junk food". These diets eliminated "junk food".

If you eliminate "junk food" and people still gain weight, then obviously it's not "junk food" that is the problem, but rather choices about what people eat in general, not just "junk food is cheap, and that's the problem".

Based on their income and the amount of money they receive, you still haven't come with a logical argument as to why they shouldn't get it. Enough of your bullshit analogies. It is a pathetic attempt at an argument.


You claimed food stamp recipients could easily afford food because of your idiotic logic about potatoes. I made it obvious that these people can't afford all of the food groups. If they could, they would have better functioning bodies which means less fat storage and faster metabolism. IF you understood nutrition, you would have a clue but obviously you don't.

So if my income is low, and the amount I steal from you is low, then I should be allowed to get it?

Where do you live, I'd like to pick up some cash from you.

No, you made the claim that 'junk food is cheap', when in reality buying regular food at the super market is much much cheaper.

What you are proving is that you have no idea what things really cost at the super market.

 

[Billy000]

I believe I jumped on that too quickly. Typically when a people start screaming about subsidies, they end up talking about a tax break, which is *NOT* a subisidy.

In this particular case, your source may have actually been talking about real subsidies, where money is taxed away from one group, and given to another.

In which case, you are preaching to the choir. All of us on the right, are completely against subsidies..... ALL subsidies. I want them ALL gone.

The difference between us, and you.... is that we are ideologically consistent. We are against *ALL* subsides.... that means everything from giving millions to Solydra.... to giving a lazy bum a SNAP card.

See, we're not tied up by ratios, or percentages. This is why none of us bothered to talk about your little factoids about SNAP. It doesn't matter to us.

Let's say that I come to your home, and shove a gun in your face, and demand $100, and then as I leave, I give the $100 to a homeless guy.

Is that right or wrong? Of course it's wrong. Well what if I demand $1,000? Still wrong. Yeah but what if I only demand 10¢? That's a very small percentage. Nope, still wrong!

Now what if I find someone else, like say a politician in government, to do the same thing? That's all still wrong. All of it.

So how much more, or how much less, any particular group gets in Federal Funds, doesn't matter to me. Its all wrong.

Now back to the Corporate Welfare. Let's look at exactly what we're talking about.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Corporate-Welfare-Programs-BY-Agency1.jpg
thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Corporate-Welfare-Programs-BY-Agency-21.jpg

Department of Agriculture.

Agriculture Marketing Services, promotes "Organic Foods"
Resources Conservation Service, pays people to increase carbon absorption (I can't make this stuff up), and protect animals like the Gopher Tortoise.
Farm Security and Rural Investment, giving low interest government backed loans for among other things, green energy business.
Commodity Credit Corporation, which buys commodities for the purpose of stabilizing prices (created by FDR in 1933, by executive order. Sound familiar?)
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, which originally was designed to cover major events like the dust bowl, but now covers pretty much everything, from 'too much rain', to frost bite.
Rural Business and Co-Operative Service, which promotes Co-Ops, and Biomass fuels. (yeah, I don't know how those two went together either.... but it's government)
Rural Electrification, which of course promotes getting electricity to all those completely un-powered rural towns and villages, which have no power at all....... since the 1930s when this program was created.....

Department of Commerce

Minority Business Development Agency.... any questions?
International Trade, subsidizing international trade, which is a form of protectionism, which I'm against. There are a few right-wingers who disagree, but mostly it's the left screaming about trade.
Fisheries, unfortunately are unavoidable. Until we privatize ocean into plots, as long as the Fisheries are a common ground, without regulation and control of the fishing industry, they will fish until the resource is used up. Tragedy of the Commons.
All the rest of are grants to business.... which I'm against.

Department of Energy

Energy Supply Subsidies.... I couldn't find out what that refers to. I assume it's the loan guarantee for energy producers, which includes everything from Nuclear power plants, to Wind Turbines and Solar Panels. I'm against all of those.
Fossil Energy Research and Dev, which is R&D on Carbon Capture, and CO2 reduction.
Coal Research, goes to the clean coal initiative, that Bush canceled because it had produced nothing, and Obama brought right back.
Hydrogen and the Clean Car.... more alternative green energy. Granted this one was Bush's idea, but it's still the same green energy crap.

Department of Housing and Urban Dev..... Do I even need to outline the leftist crap in this one?

Department of Transportation.

Grants in Aid to Airports.... Let them close if they are not profitable.
Commercial Space Transport.... why are we funding this? Maybe there is a reason.
Payments to Air Carriers to fly to places that are not profitable to fly to.
Amtrak, High Speed Rail, and R&D.... Need I say more?
Guaranteed Loan to Ship Builders.... completely against that.
Ocean Freight Differential... Not sure. Could not figure out what that was.

Corp Public Broadcasting... against.
International Development... against.
Small Business Admin.... against.
Overseas Private Investment... against.
National Institute of Health.... against.

So just the Department of Agriculture alone, was $43.7 Billion of that $91.9 Billion, and which group of people tried to eliminate Farm subsidies? Right-wing Republicans. It certainly wasn't the left trying to kill of Biomass Fuel Subsidies. And look at some of those programs..... Organic Food marketing, Co-Op Support, Biomass fuels, Green Energy grants, Paying people for Carbon Absorption? Do those sound like Right-Wing Free-Market Capitalist programs? Buying up commodities for price stability?

I can remember, back in the early 2000s, Rush Limbaugh screaming about the Farm Subsidies bill, and yelling about all the money that would be blown to wealthy rich corporations.

Fast Forward 10 years, and now here you are complaining about the subsidies given to Corporations, and nearly half of it, is all from that Farm Bill.

You people on the left, can't support a big government money give away, and then turn around and complain about government money being given away. That's called hypocrisy. "I support green energy grants!" tick tick tick.... "Look at all the subsidies to energy companies!"

Now, to be fair, there are a few things that Right-wingers would likely support. Like the R&D spending for the military, which does benefit private business, and possibly the Foreign Military Financing (which I'm largely against).

But all of the things Right-Wingers may support, combined, would only be about $16 Billion, of that $91 Billion. All the rest of it, is all left wing crap, and many were started by FDR.

You are so full of shit. Maybe you are against subsidies, but the rightwing in general obviously aren't considering it is republicans who, more than democrats, push subsidies.

It is also moronic to compare a homeless man robbing you to people on food stamps. Most people on food stamps have jobs (very low income) and have at least one dependent to take care of. You want people off food stamps? Then raise the minimum wage. You can't have it both ways.

You claim that the "right-wing" push subsidies.

Well... You posted a link. On that link, I just went through all the subsidies. Which of on that list of subsidies, a list that provided by the very link you cited, would you claim is a right-wing support subsidies?

Organic foods? Ethanol? Alternative Energy Grants / Loans? Amtrak? High Speed Rail Research? Support for Co-Ops? Certainly not HUD, right? We've been fighting HUD for decades.

Which one do you suggest is the "right-wing subsidy"?

I listed two. Military R&D, which I think is good, and needed. One that some right-wing people might be in favor of, is Foreign military financing. I'm against that.

But other than those, which ones do you suggest the Right-wing is generally in favor of?

Back to food stamps....

Again, say I'm a working person, with a full time job, and I come to your house, shove a gun in your face, and demand $100, and on my way out, I find another working person with a full time job, and give them the $100.

Is that wrong or right? Did the fact that we have full time jobs, change the moral standing of my action?

Again, replace me, with the Federal Government, stealing the money and giving it to working people. Is that now suddenly morally right?

No. It's still wrong.

And as far as the minimum wage... ok fine let's raise the minimum wage.

Just understand, that when you do this, two things will happen. First, a ton of people are going to lose their jobs. Every single time you raise the minimum wage, jobs are lost.

How much in food stamps will they need when they are earning ZERO?

Second, the price of goods and services will increase in relation to the minimum wage. Meaning the people who keep their jobs, will still not be able to afford much more than they can now.

The minimum wage throughout all history, and all the world, has never had good results.

Why have you still not acknowledged the hypocrisy of republicans backing corporate welfare but not food stamps? Also, you only proved dems have supported subsidies which I already admitted. You haven't proven that they suppor them as often or as long as republicans have.


Enough of these analogies. It is a pathetic attempt at arguing. It is a feeble analogy anyway. Anyone who qualifies for food stamps, and who has children (which is most of them), need the assistance.


Also, according to the CBO, raising the minimum wage to 10.10 would kill about 500,000 jobs but even that is a liberal estimate. Either way, it would lift 900,000 people out of poverty and improve the income of 24 million people. The good far outweighs the bad. Also, the increase in consumer spending would improve the economy.

 

[bedowin62]

why are liberals such morons?

a few would MARGINALLY benefit by going from about $8/hour to $10

the others laid off would go from having a job to nothing; nothing but unemployment and welfare.

then again the inept Left-wing Administration is now extolling the virtues of unemployment

idiots and hypocrites

 

[velvtacheeze]

There'd be a lot less need for welfare spending if companies paid all their workers more. But conservatives are against both welfare spending and minimum wage laws. Oddly, they always wonder why Mitt lost. Um, try looking at your preferred policies, conservatives. There's your reason.

And yes, liberals are aware of your "making something cost more means you get less of it" arguments against minimum wage laws, so please don't bore us with them. They are unconvincing. You need to try something else.

 

[bedowin62]

There'd be a lot less need for welfare spending if companies paid all their workers more. But conservatives are against both welfare spending and minimum wage laws. Oddly, they always wonder why Mitt lost. Um, try looking at your preferred policies, conservatives. There's your reason.

And yes, liberals are aware of your "making something cost more means you get less of it" arguments against minimum wage laws, so please don't bore us with them. They are unconvincing. You need to try something else.

again you make a fool of yourself. if wages were raise there would be a MARGINAL improvment for some; for the ones laid off? they would go from having a job to being COMPLETELY dependant on the government. how much would that cost moron?

 

[RKMBrown]

The truth of the matter is that the wealthy receive enormous gov assistance through subsidies. The poor on the other hand get peanuts.

Let's start with the poor and SNAP (food stamps).

The average SNAP recipient receives $133 a month. The average SNAP recipient has a gross income of $744 a MONTH per household. 76% of households have at least one dependent living there. 83% of households receiving SNAP are below the poverty line. The other 17 are at the poverty line or make 130% of the poverty line. And despite what you cons like to believe, food stamps fraud is RARE.

All the sobering facts on food stamps are here.

SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities

Now the wealthy. Oh boy.

1) corporations receive $80 billion a year through state and local subsidies.

2) Federal subsidies for corporations cost TAX PAYERS 100 billion a year.

3) The official tax rate for corporations is 35%. However, because of tax breaks, corporations only pay 13% a year in taxes.

4) wealthy hedge fund managers cost tax payers 83 billion a year.

5) subsidies for fast food companies cost tax payers 243 billion a year.

6) deductions for mortgage cost tax payers 70 billion a year. 77% of this funding goes to income earners of 100,000 a year or more.

Top Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

The more facts we learn, the more realize just how much bullshit republicanism really is.

Perhaps you could teach the republicans how to become poor and stay there like a good little democrat.

 

[Billy000]

So they gain weight because they eat after midnight, and shop when they get another payment.

I can solve one of those, by not giving them a payment. They can shop whenever they work and earn a paycheck.

The other one.... What exactly do you propose to do to solve that? I myself, eat after midnight, and I'm not collecting any SNAP.

As far as the yammering about diet.... Well you were the one who referred to "junk food". These diets eliminated "junk food".

If you eliminate "junk food" and people still gain weight, then obviously it's not "junk food" that is the problem, but rather choices about what people eat in general, not just "junk food is cheap, and that's the problem".

Based on their income and the amount of money they receive, you still haven't come with a logical argument as to why they shouldn't get it. Enough of your bullshit analogies. It is a pathetic attempt at an argument.


You claimed food stamp recipients could easily afford food because of your idiotic logic about potatoes. I made it obvious that these people can't afford all of the food groups. If they could, they would have better functioning bodies which means less fat storage and faster metabolism. IF you understood nutrition, you would have a clue but obviously you don't.

So if my income is low, and the amount I steal from you is low, then I should be allowed to get it?

Where do you live, I'd like to pick up some cash from you.

No, you made the claim that 'junk food is cheap', when in reality buying regular food at the super market is much much cheaper.

What you are proving is that you have no idea what things really cost at the super market.

Um no based on SNAP limitations, I made it clear they can't afford all of the food groups. You are wrong and you know it. All that being said, you can buy MORE food at a time if it is junk food. The food you discussed would not cover their whole diet.

 

[Andylusion]

Why have you still not acknowledged the hypocrisy of republicans backing corporate welfare but not food stamps? Also, you only proved dems have supported subsidies which I already admitted. You haven't proven that they suppor them as often or as long as republicans have.


Enough of these analogies. It is a pathetic attempt at arguing. It is a feeble analogy anyway. Anyone who qualifies for food stamps, and who has children (which is most of them), need the assistance.


Also, according to the CBO, raising the minimum wage to 10.10 would kill about 500,000 jobs but even that is a liberal estimate. Either way, it would lift 900,000 people out of poverty and improve the income of 24 million people. The good far outweighs the bad. Also, the increase in consumer spending would improve the economy.

The CBO is wrong. It would kill far more jobs than that, as it has in the past. Further, it would not lift people out of poverty, because the poverty line would rise, with the inflation caused by the minimum wage.

You seem to forget something. Many countries have tried this method, and it doesn't work. France has had a higher cost of labor than the US, and France has had double digit unemployment FOR DECADES.

Greece tried this in 2010. They announced a plan to increase their minimum wage, and said that it would give people more money, and it would benefit the economy. At that time in 2010, the unemployment rate was supposed to drop.

I predicted back in 2010, that not only would the minimum wage not benefit the economy, or benefit people, it would completely reverse the dropping unemployment and increase it. That is exactly what happened. The economy got worse, the unemployment rate got higher, and even the Socialists in Greece figure it out, because they reversed policy, and cut the minimum wage, in order to create jobs.

Now back to the original conversation....

You have made the claim several times that:

"it is republicans who, more than democrats, push subsidies."

And now:

"republicans backing corporate welfare"

YOUR LINK........ had a list of corporate subsidies, which I detailed on this thread.

Which of the subsidies that *YOUR LINK* provided, would you claim is the "Republican backed subsidies"?

You come on this forum with a citation, and now you can't even point something on your own citation that supports the claims you made?

And as far as the aspect that if they qualify then they automatically must need it? What kind of bull crap is that?

Does your logic not apply to anything else? If companies qualify for welfare, then they must need it.... right?

Millionaire got food stamps; Obama Administration helps wealthy get welfare - Washington DC SCOTUS | Examiner.com

A Michigan millionaire collected food stamps after winning the lottery. “Amanda Clayton, a 24-year-old from Lincoln Park, Michigan . . . is getting away with it," reported the Daily Caller in a recent story. "Clayton won $1 million from the Michigan State Lottery this fall, but she is still collecting and using $200 a month in food assistance from the taxpayers with her Michigan Bridge Card. ‘I thought that they would cut me off, but since they didn’t, I thought maybe it was okay because I’m not working,’ the lottery winner who just purchased a new house and car told Local 4 in Detroit. The station even filmed her shamelessly purchasing goods. When Local 4 asked if she felt she had a right to the money, Clayton responded, ‘I mean I kinda do.’” “‘I have bills to pay,” she said. “I have two houses.”

She must need it! I mean... she's got two houses now, so she has bills to pay, and thus she needs it! Right? She qualifies therefore she must need it after winning the lottery.

Wall Street Journal: Food Stamps for Millionaires | James BovardJames Bovard

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel revealed that Wisconsin food-stamp recipients routinely sell their benefit cards on Facebook. The investigation also found that “nearly 2,000 recipients claimed they lost their card six or more times in 2010 and requested replacements.” USDA rules require that lost cards be speedily replaced. The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute concluded: “Prosecutors have simply stopped prosecuting the vast majority of [food-stamp] fraud cases in virtually all counties, including the one with the most recipients, Milwaukee.”

Selling their cards on Facebook, and then claiming they were lost, and having them replaced at tax payer expense. And the government has just flat out stopped prosecuting fraud.... oh but I thought if they qualified they must need them? They need them so much, they are selling them on Facebook?

No, you are full of crap. Just flat out, you are wrong. The fact they qualify, alone, does not mean they need them.

Dude... *I* qualify for food stamps. I just refuse to use it, because I work for a living, and can pay for myself.

 

[Billy000]

Why have you still not acknowledged the hypocrisy of republicans backing corporate welfare but not food stamps? Also, you only proved dems have supported subsidies which I already admitted. You haven't proven that they suppor them as often or as long as republicans have.


Enough of these analogies. It is a pathetic attempt at arguing. It is a feeble analogy anyway. Anyone who qualifies for food stamps, and who has children (which is most of them), need the assistance.


Also, according to the CBO, raising the minimum wage to 10.10 would kill about 500,000 jobs but even that is a liberal estimate. Either way, it would lift 900,000 people out of poverty and improve the income of 24 million people. The good far outweighs the bad. Also, the increase in consumer spending would improve the economy.

The CBO is wrong. It would kill far more jobs than that, as it has in the past. Further, it would not lift people out of poverty, because the poverty line would rise, with the inflation caused by the minimum wage.

You seem to forget something. Many countries have tried this method, and it doesn't work. France has had a higher cost of labor than the US, and France has had double digit unemployment FOR DECADES.

Greece tried this in 2010. They announced a plan to increase their minimum wage, and said that it would give people more money, and it would benefit the economy. At that time in 2010, the unemployment rate was supposed to drop.

I predicted back in 2010, that not only would the minimum wage not benefit the economy, or benefit people, it would completely reverse the dropping unemployment and increase it. That is exactly what happened. The economy got worse, the unemployment rate got higher, and even the Socialists in Greece figure it out, because they reversed policy, and cut the minimum wage, in order to create jobs.

Now back to the original conversation....

You have made the claim several times that:

"it is republicans who, more than democrats, push subsidies."

And now:

"republicans backing corporate welfare"

YOUR LINK........ had a list of corporate subsidies, which I detailed on this thread.

Which of the subsidies that *YOUR LINK* provided, would you claim is the "Republican backed subsidies"?

You come on this forum with a citation, and now you can't even point something on your own citation that supports the claims you made?

And as far as the aspect that if they qualify then they automatically must need it? What kind of bull crap is that?

Does your logic not apply to anything else? If companies qualify for welfare, then they must need it.... right?

Millionaire got food stamps; Obama Administration helps wealthy get welfare - Washington DC SCOTUS | Examiner.com

A Michigan millionaire collected food stamps after winning the lottery. “Amanda Clayton, a 24-year-old from Lincoln Park, Michigan . . . is getting away with it," reported the Daily Caller in a recent story. "Clayton won $1 million from the Michigan State Lottery this fall, but she is still collecting and using $200 a month in food assistance from the taxpayers with her Michigan Bridge Card. ‘I thought that they would cut me off, but since they didn’t, I thought maybe it was okay because I’m not working,’ the lottery winner who just purchased a new house and car told Local 4 in Detroit. The station even filmed her shamelessly purchasing goods. When Local 4 asked if she felt she had a right to the money, Clayton responded, ‘I mean I kinda do.’” “‘I have bills to pay,” she said. “I have two houses.”

She must need it! I mean... she's got two houses now, so she has bills to pay, and thus she needs it! Right? She qualifies therefore she must need it after winning the lottery.

Wall Street Journal: Food Stamps for Millionaires | James BovardJames Bovard

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel revealed that Wisconsin food-stamp recipients routinely sell their benefit cards on Facebook. The investigation also found that “nearly 2,000 recipients claimed they lost their card six or more times in 2010 and requested replacements.” USDA rules require that lost cards be speedily replaced. The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute concluded: “Prosecutors have simply stopped prosecuting the vast majority of [food-stamp] fraud cases in virtually all counties, including the one with the most recipients, Milwaukee.”

Selling their cards on Facebook, and then claiming they were lost, and having them replaced at tax payer expense. And the government has just flat out stopped prosecuting fraud.... oh but I thought if they qualified they must need them? They need them so much, they are selling them on Facebook?

No, you are full of crap. Just flat out, you are wrong. The fact they qualify, alone, does not mean they need them.

Dude... *I* qualify for food stamps. I just refuse to use it, because I work for a living, and can pay for myself.

You can't say the CBO is wrong without proof and compare this country to others. That is just fluff and you know it. Prove the CBO wrong or get off your high horse.


Again, you still havemt proven dems support subsidies (also known as corporate welfare) more than republicans. Obama supporting it hardly proves it.