SNAP (food stamps) should be restricted to rice, flour, rolled oats, and sugar

[Silhouette]

SNAP (food stamps) should be restricted to rice, flour, rolled oats, and sugar

Does that come with a case of insulin? Seriously. Most hunger is protein hunger. I'd like to see them restricted to meats, legumes & vegetables; if we have to choose..

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I also think that one of the requirements should be you are not allowed to own pets. It makes no sense that taxpayers are feeding people and those people are feeding their animals. The government should be allowed to send agents to various homes to see if these people have huge dogs or ten cats.

I agree but the real problem is the fools have kids!!! Poor people shouldn't have kids.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Not everyone knows how to cook from scratch & wouldn't have the first clue what to do with basic staple ingredients. A person can not only survive on rice & beans, but even thrive. But it does get old fast without variety. Meats & fruits & veggies are necessary too

Well, yeah, without fruit, you end up getting scurvy.

. Vitamin C tablets are extremely cheap. Like 2 cents a day. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Nice try...

But cities like Detroit, Camden, and yes.....even Cleveland
Have nowhere near he job opportunities for number unemployed

Job opportunities are not the problem. The problem is all these blacks who have thrown their future away. No one will hire an illiterate black ex-con knowing he will rob the company first chance he gets.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I also think that one of the requirements should be you are not allowed to own pets. It makes no sense that taxpayers are feeding people and those people are feeding their animals. The government should be allowed to send agents to various homes to see if these people have huge dogs or ten cats.

I agree but the real problem is the fools have kids!!! Poor people shouldn't have kids.

Which is why I think if a person is applying for any kind of welfare, they shouldn't receive one dime until they are fixed. You can't solve poverty when the government offers incentives for poor people to create more poor people. I think it should apply to both genders as well. If a father of a child isn't supporting or help supporting it, he too should have to be fixed before he gets any kind of welfare.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Who is responsible for the people who breed kids they can't afford and won't raise right?

Democrats. They created this crazy welfare system that pays poor people to have kids.

 

[sealybobo]

[

Who is responsible for the people who breed kids they can't afford and won't raise right?

Democrats. They created this crazy welfare system that pays poor people to have kids.

Well we arent in charge and since those poor people don't show up and vote for us every two years, fuck them. I've always said don't vote don't matter. So now is the time for serious welfare reform. Godspeed

 

[Lewdog]

I also think that one of the requirements should be you are not allowed to own pets. It makes no sense that taxpayers are feeding people and those people are feeding their animals. The government should be allowed to send agents to various homes to see if these people have huge dogs or ten cats.

I agree but the real problem is the fools have kids!!! Poor people shouldn't have kids.

Which is why I think if a person is applying for any kind of welfare, they shouldn't receive one dime until they are fixed. You can't solve poverty when the government offers incentives for poor people to create more poor people. I think it should apply to both genders as well. If a father of a child isn't supporting or help supporting it, he too should have to be fixed before he gets any kind of welfare.

Being poor isn't an incurable disease... what you just said is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.

"You want food? You gotta give up the chance to have kids the rest of your life..."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I also think that one of the requirements should be you are not allowed to own pets. It makes no sense that taxpayers are feeding people and those people are feeding their animals. The government should be allowed to send agents to various homes to see if these people have huge dogs or ten cats.

I agree but the real problem is the fools have kids!!! Poor people shouldn't have kids.

Which is why I think if a person is applying for any kind of welfare, they shouldn't receive one dime until they are fixed. You can't solve poverty when the government offers incentives for poor people to create more poor people. I think it should apply to both genders as well. If a father of a child isn't supporting or help supporting it, he too should have to be fixed before he gets any kind of welfare.

Being poor isn't an incurable disease... what you just said is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.

"You want food? You gotta give up the chance to have kids the rest of your life..."

So the non-idiotic thing is for poor people to have more children for a larger SNAP's card, a bigger HUD home in the suburbs, and of course, paid utilities?

And let me ask: what do you think working parents do when they can't financially support any more children?

My suggestion is nothing more than society asks of working people. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. But for some reason, you think poor people should be exempt from that restriction. And BTW, most birth control methods can be reversed. When you are off the dole and want to have children, in most cases, that's possible.

 

[Lewdog]

I also think that one of the requirements should be you are not allowed to own pets. It makes no sense that taxpayers are feeding people and those people are feeding their animals. The government should be allowed to send agents to various homes to see if these people have huge dogs or ten cats.

I agree but the real problem is the fools have kids!!! Poor people shouldn't have kids.

Which is why I think if a person is applying for any kind of welfare, they shouldn't receive one dime until they are fixed. You can't solve poverty when the government offers incentives for poor people to create more poor people. I think it should apply to both genders as well. If a father of a child isn't supporting or help supporting it, he too should have to be fixed before he gets any kind of welfare.

Being poor isn't an incurable disease... what you just said is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.

"You want food? You gotta give up the chance to have kids the rest of your life..."

So the non-idiotic thing is for poor people to have more children for a larger SNAP's card, a bigger HUD home in the suburbs, and of course, paid utilities?

And let me ask: what do you think working parents do when they can't financially support any more children?

My suggestion is nothing more than society asks of working people. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. But for some reason, you think poor people should be exempt from that restriction. And BTW, most birth control methods can be reversed. When you are off the dole and want to have children, in most cases, that's possible.

No, you are being over the top... and putting forth a fucking retarded idea. Again, being poor is not an incurable disease. Someone shouldn't have to give up their ability to have kids the rest of their life just to be able to eat. Something along the lines of, a person is locked into the amount of aid they get based on the size of the family at the time they sign up, and that if they have more children while on assistance programs they don't get any extra funding... would be enough to keep people from having more kids on purpose.

 

[Camp]

Procreating is a constitutional right covered under the 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion.

 

[Lewdog]

Procreating is a constitutional right covered under the 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion.

Trump supporters are starting to sound more and more like little Hitlers every day.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I also think that one of the requirements should be you are not allowed to own pets. It makes no sense that taxpayers are feeding people and those people are feeding their animals. The government should be allowed to send agents to various homes to see if these people have huge dogs or ten cats.

I agree but the real problem is the fools have kids!!! Poor people shouldn't have kids.

Which is why I think if a person is applying for any kind of welfare, they shouldn't receive one dime until they are fixed. You can't solve poverty when the government offers incentives for poor people to create more poor people. I think it should apply to both genders as well. If a father of a child isn't supporting or help supporting it, he too should have to be fixed before he gets any kind of welfare.

Being poor isn't an incurable disease... what you just said is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.

"You want food? You gotta give up the chance to have kids the rest of your life..."

So the non-idiotic thing is for poor people to have more children for a larger SNAP's card, a bigger HUD home in the suburbs, and of course, paid utilities?

And let me ask: what do you think working parents do when they can't financially support any more children?

My suggestion is nothing more than society asks of working people. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. But for some reason, you think poor people should be exempt from that restriction. And BTW, most birth control methods can be reversed. When you are off the dole and want to have children, in most cases, that's possible.

No, you are being over the top... and putting forth a fucking retarded idea. Again, being poor is not an incurable disease. Someone shouldn't have to give up their ability to have kids the rest of their life just to be able to eat. Something along the lines of, a person is locked into the amount of aid they get based on the size of the family at the time they sign up, and that if they have more children while on assistance programs they don't get any extra funding... would be enough to keep people from having more kids on purpose.

Obviously you don't even understand your own party. If kids were starving because government refused to pay the parents more to support their additional children, that would fly okay with the MSM?

If someone shouldn't give up their right to have children so they can eat, why is it working parents do exactly that? Is that inhuman?

When working responsible parents can no longer afford any more children, they stop having them. They voluntarily get themselves fixed. But you think it's a fucken retarded idea that we do exactly the same thing for people that can't afford more children.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Which is why I think if a person is applying for any kind of welfare, they shouldn't receive one dime until they are fixed. .

Even i think that's extreme. Just take away their right to vote. If you're been on medicaid or section 8 or SNAP in the 12 months prior to an election, then you're not eligible. In the future maybe you will be.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Procreating is a constitutional right covered under the 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion.

But having society pay for those children is not Constitutional.

 

[Lewdog]

I agree but the real problem is the fools have kids!!! Poor people shouldn't have kids.

Which is why I think if a person is applying for any kind of welfare, they shouldn't receive one dime until they are fixed. You can't solve poverty when the government offers incentives for poor people to create more poor people. I think it should apply to both genders as well. If a father of a child isn't supporting or help supporting it, he too should have to be fixed before he gets any kind of welfare.

Being poor isn't an incurable disease... what you just said is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.

"You want food? You gotta give up the chance to have kids the rest of your life..."

So the non-idiotic thing is for poor people to have more children for a larger SNAP's card, a bigger HUD home in the suburbs, and of course, paid utilities?

And let me ask: what do you think working parents do when they can't financially support any more children?

My suggestion is nothing more than society asks of working people. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. But for some reason, you think poor people should be exempt from that restriction. And BTW, most birth control methods can be reversed. When you are off the dole and want to have children, in most cases, that's possible.

No, you are being over the top... and putting forth a fucking retarded idea. Again, being poor is not an incurable disease. Someone shouldn't have to give up their ability to have kids the rest of their life just to be able to eat. Something along the lines of, a person is locked into the amount of aid they get based on the size of the family at the time they sign up, and that if they have more children while on assistance programs they don't get any extra funding... would be enough to keep people from having more kids on purpose.

Obviously you don't even understand your own party. If kids were starving because government refused to pay the parents more to support their additional children, that would fly okay with the MSM?

If someone shouldn't give up their right to have children so they can eat, why is it working parents do exactly that? Is that inhuman?

When working responsible parents can no longer afford any more children, they stop having them. They voluntarily get themselves fixed. But you think it's a fucken retarded idea that we do exactly the same thing for people that can't afford more children.

My own party... again. WTF are you talking about? You aren't talking about fucking giving them a choice. You are talking about FORCING them to chose whether to eat or give up their ability to have kids.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Trump supporters are starting to sound more and more like little Hitlers every day.

Hitler was a socialist and anti-gun. Who does that sound like.?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is why I think if a person is applying for any kind of welfare, they shouldn't receive one dime until they are fixed. .

Even i think that's extreme. Just take away their right to vote. If you're been on medicaid or section 8 or SNAP in the 12 months prior to an election, then you're not eligible. In the future maybe you will be.

I don't see how that's extreme given the fact that's exactly what working parents do. If you can't afford anymore children, you get yourself fixed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is why I think if a person is applying for any kind of welfare, they shouldn't receive one dime until they are fixed. You can't solve poverty when the government offers incentives for poor people to create more poor people. I think it should apply to both genders as well. If a father of a child isn't supporting or help supporting it, he too should have to be fixed before he gets any kind of welfare.

Being poor isn't an incurable disease... what you just said is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.

"You want food? You gotta give up the chance to have kids the rest of your life..."

So the non-idiotic thing is for poor people to have more children for a larger SNAP's card, a bigger HUD home in the suburbs, and of course, paid utilities?

And let me ask: what do you think working parents do when they can't financially support any more children?

My suggestion is nothing more than society asks of working people. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. But for some reason, you think poor people should be exempt from that restriction. And BTW, most birth control methods can be reversed. When you are off the dole and want to have children, in most cases, that's possible.

No, you are being over the top... and putting forth a fucking retarded idea. Again, being poor is not an incurable disease. Someone shouldn't have to give up their ability to have kids the rest of their life just to be able to eat. Something along the lines of, a person is locked into the amount of aid they get based on the size of the family at the time they sign up, and that if they have more children while on assistance programs they don't get any extra funding... would be enough to keep people from having more kids on purpose.

Obviously you don't even understand your own party. If kids were starving because government refused to pay the parents more to support their additional children, that would fly okay with the MSM?

If someone shouldn't give up their right to have children so they can eat, why is it working parents do exactly that? Is that inhuman?

When working responsible parents can no longer afford any more children, they stop having them. They voluntarily get themselves fixed. But you think it's a fucken retarded idea that we do exactly the same thing for people that can't afford more children.

My own party... again. WTF are you talking about? You aren't talking about fucking giving them a choice. You are talking about FORCING them to chose whether to eat or give up their ability to have kids.

Again, which is something all working parents do across the country. If you really want more kids, fine, get a job and pay for those kids. I have no problem with that. But if you're going to tell me that "it's a choice" for people to have children they can't afford and send me the bill, then where is my choice in the matter?

 

[Lewdog]

Trump supporters are starting to sound more and more like little Hitlers every day.

Hitler was a socialist and anti-gun. Who does that sound like.?

It sounds like the fucking dumbass people that think forcing people to get fixed from having kids in order to eat is a good idea.