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

[Ray From Cleveland]

[

Not in the least bit. The only place money "goes" is to the poor and the lazy. Money doesn't "go" to the rich, it's created by the rich and then taken from them..

These stupid Moon Bats think that everybody making more money than themselves should be taxed at 100%. If they are not taxed at that amount then the Moon Bats think they are somehow stealing money from the Moon Bats.

I know it is ridiculous and convoluted but these Moon Bats are not exactly the best and the brightest and they are filled with envy and greed and think somebody else should be paying their bills.

What's telling is the entitlement mentality. Money belongs to whoever the government thinks it belongs to instead of the creator and owner of that money. Leftists think that the United States should operate like one giant commune. When somebody makes or earns a substantial amount of money, that money belongs to everybody. That's what Danny thinks is capitalism.

"Liberals believe if you make money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. providing for a wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, are not.

Providing the general welfare does not mean funding the general welfare.

We are a nation of laws, and the only way to enforce those laws is with revenue. There is nothing unconstitutional about that except funding for the poor. Our US Constitution requires our leaders to fight wars like those on terror. It's their obligation which of course, requires spending.

 

[danielpalos]

CBO study shows that ‘the rich’ don’t just pay a ‘fair share’ of federal taxes, they pay almost everybody’s share

Is that wrong? Most rich ppl have jobs of no social value. They are lawyers, politicians, bankers, athletes, entertainers.. THINK

I don't think you have much "social value" flipping burgers at McDonald or being a community organizer or a climate scientist pushing the global warming scam, do you?.

Some have inherited wealth but most rich people that pay into that filthy ass trillion a year in income tax earned their money somewhere along the line.

Regardless of how they got their money some stupid shithead welfare queen should not be entitled to it simply because they are alive, wouldn't you agree?

dude; you are missing the point about moral forms of absolutism from the Age of Iron. A work ethic from that Age is alleged by the right to be necessary and valued.

 

[danielpalos]

[Q


What's telling is the entitlement mentality. Money belongs to whoever the government thinks it belongs to instead of the creator and owner of that money. Leftists think that the United States should operate like one giant commune. When somebody makes or earns a substantial amount of money, that money belongs to everybody. That's what Danny thinks is capitalism.

"Liberals believe if you make money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

Danny is a confused, envious, greedy and not all that bright Moon Bat. He is simply not capable of ever getting it right.

It takes a very despicable human being to think that they are entitled to have somebody else pay their bills simply because they are alive.

Ever notice how liberals think they are entitled to everything while conservatives are entitled to nothing?

They are self absorbed and don't live in reality.

ever notice how alleged conservatives socialize everything, nationally, and blame the left for our welfare-state, because the right refuses to pay for our warfare-state.

Socialize everything? What do we socialize?

our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

[danielpalos]

[

Not in the least bit. The only place money "goes" is to the poor and the lazy. Money doesn't "go" to the rich, it's created by the rich and then taken from them..

These stupid Moon Bats think that everybody making more money than themselves should be taxed at 100%. If they are not taxed at that amount then the Moon Bats think they are somehow stealing money from the Moon Bats.

I know it is ridiculous and convoluted but these Moon Bats are not exactly the best and the brightest and they are filled with envy and greed and think somebody else should be paying their bills.

What's telling is the entitlement mentality. Money belongs to whoever the government thinks it belongs to instead of the creator and owner of that money. Leftists think that the United States should operate like one giant commune. When somebody makes or earns a substantial amount of money, that money belongs to everybody. That's what Danny thinks is capitalism.

"Liberals believe if you make money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. providing for a wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, are not.

Providing the general welfare does not mean funding the general welfare.

We are a nation of laws, and the only way to enforce those laws is with revenue. There is nothing unconstitutional about that except funding for the poor. Our US Constitution requires our leaders to fight wars like those on terror. It's their obligation which of course, requires spending.

yes, it does, specifically mean just that. why do you believe it doesn't?

have you looked into the difference between private laws and public laws.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[

Not in the least bit. The only place money "goes" is to the poor and the lazy. Money doesn't "go" to the rich, it's created by the rich and then taken from them..

These stupid Moon Bats think that everybody making more money than themselves should be taxed at 100%. If they are not taxed at that amount then the Moon Bats think they are somehow stealing money from the Moon Bats.

I know it is ridiculous and convoluted but these Moon Bats are not exactly the best and the brightest and they are filled with envy and greed and think somebody else should be paying their bills.

What's telling is the entitlement mentality. Money belongs to whoever the government thinks it belongs to instead of the creator and owner of that money. Leftists think that the United States should operate like one giant commune. When somebody makes or earns a substantial amount of money, that money belongs to everybody. That's what Danny thinks is capitalism.

"Liberals believe if you make money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. providing for a wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, are not.

Providing the general welfare does not mean funding the general welfare.

We are a nation of laws, and the only way to enforce those laws is with revenue. There is nothing unconstitutional about that except funding for the poor. Our US Constitution requires our leaders to fight wars like those on terror. It's their obligation which of course, requires spending.

yes, it does, specifically mean just that. why do you believe it doesn't?

have you looked into the difference between private laws and public laws.

Private and public laws. WTF are private laws? I never heard of that in my life.

Let's say you had a friend over for a visit. While you're sitting outside on the patio, your elderly neighbor comes home from grocery shopping. As she struggles to get up the stairs with her groceries, you run over to help her out. You just provided for the general welfare of your neighbor.

But in different scenario, you hurt your back the day before and could't help your neighbor, so you ask your friend sitting with you if he would, and he does. You just promoted the general welfare of your neighbor.

In the third instance, your back is hurt, and your friend just had surgery two days ago and isn't allowed to lift anything. So you quickly run to the street and notice a teen playing with some friends, and you ask him to help your neighbor with her groceries and you'll pay him ten bucks. You just funded the general welfare of your neighbor.

In our Constitution, it mentions promoting the general welfare, and providing the general welfare. But nowhere is it written to fund the general welfare of the public.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[Q


What's telling is the entitlement mentality. Money belongs to whoever the government thinks it belongs to instead of the creator and owner of that money. Leftists think that the United States should operate like one giant commune. When somebody makes or earns a substantial amount of money, that money belongs to everybody. That's what Danny thinks is capitalism.

"Liberals believe if you make money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

Danny is a confused, envious, greedy and not all that bright Moon Bat. He is simply not capable of ever getting it right.

It takes a very despicable human being to think that they are entitled to have somebody else pay their bills simply because they are alive.

Ever notice how liberals think they are entitled to everything while conservatives are entitled to nothing?

They are self absorbed and don't live in reality.

ever notice how alleged conservatives socialize everything, nationally, and blame the left for our welfare-state, because the right refuses to pay for our warfare-state.

Socialize everything? What do we socialize?

our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

That's not socializing anything. You better get a dictionary and look up words you plan to use.

 

[danielpalos]

These stupid Moon Bats think that everybody making more money than themselves should be taxed at 100%. If they are not taxed at that amount then the Moon Bats think they are somehow stealing money from the Moon Bats.

I know it is ridiculous and convoluted but these Moon Bats are not exactly the best and the brightest and they are filled with envy and greed and think somebody else should be paying their bills.

What's telling is the entitlement mentality. Money belongs to whoever the government thinks it belongs to instead of the creator and owner of that money. Leftists think that the United States should operate like one giant commune. When somebody makes or earns a substantial amount of money, that money belongs to everybody. That's what Danny thinks is capitalism.

"Liberals believe if you make money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. providing for a wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, are not.

Providing the general welfare does not mean funding the general welfare.

We are a nation of laws, and the only way to enforce those laws is with revenue. There is nothing unconstitutional about that except funding for the poor. Our US Constitution requires our leaders to fight wars like those on terror. It's their obligation which of course, requires spending.

yes, it does, specifically mean just that. why do you believe it doesn't?

have you looked into the difference between private laws and public laws.

Private and public laws. WTF are private laws? I never heard of that in my life.

Let's say you had a friend over for a visit. While you're sitting outside on the patio, your elderly neighbor comes home from grocery shopping. As she struggles to get up the stairs with her groceries, you run over to help her out. You just provided for the general welfare of your neighbor.

But in different scenario, you hurt your back the day before and could't help your neighbor, so you ask your friend sitting with you if he would, and he does. You just promoted the general welfare of your neighbor.

In the third instance, your back is hurt, and your friend just had surgery two days ago and isn't allowed to lift anything. So you quickly run to the street and notice a teen playing with some friends, and you ask him to help your neighbor with her groceries and you'll pay him ten bucks. You just funded the general welfare of your neighbor.

In our Constitution, it mentions promoting the general welfare, and providing the general welfare. But nowhere is it written to fund the general welfare of the public.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Only the right wing, claims that. Providing for the general welfare means doing what it takes to fund it.

 

[danielpalos]

Danny is a confused, envious, greedy and not all that bright Moon Bat. He is simply not capable of ever getting it right.

It takes a very despicable human being to think that they are entitled to have somebody else pay their bills simply because they are alive.

Ever notice how liberals think they are entitled to everything while conservatives are entitled to nothing?

They are self absorbed and don't live in reality.

ever notice how alleged conservatives socialize everything, nationally, and blame the left for our welfare-state, because the right refuses to pay for our warfare-state.

Socialize everything? What do we socialize?

our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

That's not socializing anything. You better get a dictionary and look up words you plan to use.

those are, "public sector means of production"; a warfare-State must rely on command economics to a greater extent than a welfare-State.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ever notice how liberals think they are entitled to everything while conservatives are entitled to nothing?

They are self absorbed and don't live in reality.

ever notice how alleged conservatives socialize everything, nationally, and blame the left for our welfare-state, because the right refuses to pay for our warfare-state.

Socialize everything? What do we socialize?

our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

That's not socializing anything. You better get a dictionary and look up words you plan to use.

those are, "public sector means of production"; a warfare-State must rely on command economics to a greater extent than a welfare-State.

Fighting crimes, drugs and terrorism are not "means of production." it's combating an evil.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What's telling is the entitlement mentality. Money belongs to whoever the government thinks it belongs to instead of the creator and owner of that money. Leftists think that the United States should operate like one giant commune. When somebody makes or earns a substantial amount of money, that money belongs to everybody. That's what Danny thinks is capitalism.

"Liberals believe if you make money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell

providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. providing for a wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, are not.

Providing the general welfare does not mean funding the general welfare.

We are a nation of laws, and the only way to enforce those laws is with revenue. There is nothing unconstitutional about that except funding for the poor. Our US Constitution requires our leaders to fight wars like those on terror. It's their obligation which of course, requires spending.

yes, it does, specifically mean just that. why do you believe it doesn't?

have you looked into the difference between private laws and public laws.

Private and public laws. WTF are private laws? I never heard of that in my life.

Let's say you had a friend over for a visit. While you're sitting outside on the patio, your elderly neighbor comes home from grocery shopping. As she struggles to get up the stairs with her groceries, you run over to help her out. You just provided for the general welfare of your neighbor.

But in different scenario, you hurt your back the day before and could't help your neighbor, so you ask your friend sitting with you if he would, and he does. You just promoted the general welfare of your neighbor.

In the third instance, your back is hurt, and your friend just had surgery two days ago and isn't allowed to lift anything. So you quickly run to the street and notice a teen playing with some friends, and you ask him to help your neighbor with her groceries and you'll pay him ten bucks. You just funded the general welfare of your neighbor.

In our Constitution, it mentions promoting the general welfare, and providing the general welfare. But nowhere is it written to fund the general welfare of the public.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Only the right wing, claims that. Providing for the general welfare means doing what it takes to fund it.

No, it does not. As Madison pointed out, our federal government is not an agency of benevolence. He should know, he wrote the Constitution.

Here, learn something about what was meant in the writings:

But what does the term General Welfare actually mean? The term general welfare is often connected with the ancient philosophy of classic republicanism. This philosophy encapsulates many things, but for our discussion today it refers to promoting the common good or putting the interests of everyone over the interests of a select group or a few people.

Original Intent: The General Welfare

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Entertainment is a value that people are willing to pay for. Whether it be sports or singing or acting or whatever.
For instance, I wouldn't pay one red cent to see a stupid soccer player run up and down a field playing that boring game but many people do enjoy it and are willing to pay the cost.
It is not for me to judge the social value of a job. The market will do that fine.
Social value of income does not factor in to the income tax equations. Income is income and the majority of the taxes in this country are paid for by the people with high incomes.

So you think lebron james is as valuable to america as steve jobs was?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

LeBron is a very generous man who's donated tens of millions of dollars to charity. It's probably not on national news as much, but here in Cleveland the media makes it very well known. I don't follow sports or entertainment very much, but I would go on the limb to say LeBron gives the most to charity when it comes to sports figures. Of course he makes the most, but that's besides the point.

Most charities are rackets like the Clinton Foundation. Where have you been.?

And the fact remains that lebron has a job of no social value. THINK

 

[danielpalos]

ever notice how alleged conservatives socialize everything, nationally, and blame the left for our welfare-state, because the right refuses to pay for our warfare-state.

Socialize everything? What do we socialize?

our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

That's not socializing anything. You better get a dictionary and look up words you plan to use.

those are, "public sector means of production"; a warfare-State must rely on command economics to a greater extent than a welfare-State.

Fighting crimes, drugs and terrorism are not "means of production." it's combating an evil.

Yes, they are "public sector means of production". It is why some on the left think the right is just full of fantasy, when they claim they are for capitalism; but prefer national and social, public polices.

 

[danielpalos]

providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. providing for a wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, are not.

Providing the general welfare does not mean funding the general welfare.

We are a nation of laws, and the only way to enforce those laws is with revenue. There is nothing unconstitutional about that except funding for the poor. Our US Constitution requires our leaders to fight wars like those on terror. It's their obligation which of course, requires spending.

yes, it does, specifically mean just that. why do you believe it doesn't?

have you looked into the difference between private laws and public laws.

Private and public laws. WTF are private laws? I never heard of that in my life.

Let's say you had a friend over for a visit. While you're sitting outside on the patio, your elderly neighbor comes home from grocery shopping. As she struggles to get up the stairs with her groceries, you run over to help her out. You just provided for the general welfare of your neighbor.

But in different scenario, you hurt your back the day before and could't help your neighbor, so you ask your friend sitting with you if he would, and he does. You just promoted the general welfare of your neighbor.

In the third instance, your back is hurt, and your friend just had surgery two days ago and isn't allowed to lift anything. So you quickly run to the street and notice a teen playing with some friends, and you ask him to help your neighbor with her groceries and you'll pay him ten bucks. You just funded the general welfare of your neighbor.

In our Constitution, it mentions promoting the general welfare, and providing the general welfare. But nowhere is it written to fund the general welfare of the public.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Only the right wing, claims that. Providing for the general welfare means doing what it takes to fund it.

No, it does not. As Madison pointed out, our federal government is not an agency of benevolence. He should know, he wrote the Constitution.

Here, learn something about what was meant in the writings:

But what does the term General Welfare actually mean? The term general welfare is often connected with the ancient philosophy of classic republicanism. This philosophy encapsulates many things, but for our discussion today it refers to promoting the common good or putting the interests of everyone over the interests of a select group or a few people.

Original Intent: The General Welfare

yes, it does; it means, to raise money for the general welfare, not the general warfare.

 

[Interpol]

Don't gimme any crap about how poor people need a balanced diet. As it is these snappers spend all this money on junk food. A diet of staples will be better for them. And MUCH cheaper for the taxpayers. Eating just those 4 staples, a person can live on a dollar a day.

Rice, flour, rolled oats and sugar are not food staples.

This OP deserves an award for special achievement in stupid.

If we're not going to actually help people, but rather trap them in a never-ending cycle of dependence through the pittance we give them, then we have no right to the claim that we're a "Christian nation".

People would be far less dependent on our collective help over the long-term if we gave them greater help over the short-term. I love the idea of bringing good food to all people. Good food makes people more productive than bad food. Getting people who need help good food should be a thing that can work.

But in the bigger picture, people don't get enough help when they're down. Throwing about a $1,000/month at a person simply traps them. We basically help cover people's basic needs, but they have no way to afford a course or two that would help them upgrade their skill-set, for instance.

The part of me that was a Republican half my life resists the idea of forever growing these kinds of programs, but the part of me that has evolved to side with folks like Bernie Sanders is that if we actually lend a real hand to people who need it, and who really want to make something of themselves, then literally help them instead of banging our heads against the wall about why it is too many people feel that even the ladder to success is out of reach through entrapment within a system that isn't fucking working. Seems totally practical that we can save taxpayer $$ over the long-term by actually helping people turn their lives around right fucking now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Providing the general welfare does not mean funding the general welfare.

We are a nation of laws, and the only way to enforce those laws is with revenue. There is nothing unconstitutional about that except funding for the poor. Our US Constitution requires our leaders to fight wars like those on terror. It's their obligation which of course, requires spending.

yes, it does, specifically mean just that. why do you believe it doesn't?

have you looked into the difference between private laws and public laws.

Private and public laws. WTF are private laws? I never heard of that in my life.

Let's say you had a friend over for a visit. While you're sitting outside on the patio, your elderly neighbor comes home from grocery shopping. As she struggles to get up the stairs with her groceries, you run over to help her out. You just provided for the general welfare of your neighbor.

But in different scenario, you hurt your back the day before and could't help your neighbor, so you ask your friend sitting with you if he would, and he does. You just promoted the general welfare of your neighbor.

In the third instance, your back is hurt, and your friend just had surgery two days ago and isn't allowed to lift anything. So you quickly run to the street and notice a teen playing with some friends, and you ask him to help your neighbor with her groceries and you'll pay him ten bucks. You just funded the general welfare of your neighbor.

In our Constitution, it mentions promoting the general welfare, and providing the general welfare. But nowhere is it written to fund the general welfare of the public.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Only the right wing, claims that. Providing for the general welfare means doing what it takes to fund it.

No, it does not. As Madison pointed out, our federal government is not an agency of benevolence. He should know, he wrote the Constitution.

Here, learn something about what was meant in the writings:

But what does the term General Welfare actually mean? The term general welfare is often connected with the ancient philosophy of classic republicanism. This philosophy encapsulates many things, but for our discussion today it refers to promoting the common good or putting the interests of everyone over the interests of a select group or a few people.

Original Intent: The General Welfare

yes, it does; it means, to raise money for the general welfare, not the general warfare.

Obviously you didn't even click on the link yet alone read it. As Madison put it, the general welfare clause was limited only to that enumerated within the Constitution. And there is nothing in the Constitution that mentions housing, food, medical care, air conditioners, basketball courts, none of those things. It's within the Powers of Congress where what the federal government is to provide the people.

 

[Flash]

[


So you think lebron james is as valuable to america as steve jobs was?

What do you mean by valuable?

People are willing to give him money for what he does the same as they gave Jobs money for what he did.

I would not personally give James one cent of my money because I am not a fan of professional basketball. I wouldn't pay 50 cents to go to a game. However, there are a lot of people that enjoy professional basketball and are willing to spend money to see him and his team play. That is called the free market.

Tax policy is not be based upon a subjective determination of social worth of a particular profession as far as I know. Is that what you are are advocating? What if your determination of social worth is different than mine? Which one do we go with? I propose we go with mine. That would be fair.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LeBron is a very generous man who's donated tens of millions of dollars to charity. It's probably not on national news as much, but here in Cleveland the media makes it very well known. I don't follow sports or entertainment very much, but I would go on the limb to say LeBron gives the most to charity when it comes to sports figures. Of course he makes the most, but that's besides the point.

Most charities are rackets like the Clinton Foundation. Where have you been.?

And the fact remains that lebron has a job of no social value. THINK

So what is a job of "social value?"

LeBron brings a lot of money into the city of Cleveland. I call that social value. As for charity, I'm sure when you're writing checks for millions and millions of dollars, you investigate what charities you are contributing to. CharityNavigator.com is easy enough for anybody to use.

LeBron's foundation to spend $41M to send kids to college | FOX Sports

 

[Flash]

[QUO

I think it's very wrong. When you go to the movies, do they arrange their ticket prices by how much you make? How about a restaurant or gift shop?

If we all benefit by living in this great country, we should all contribute to it as well. Nearly half of the people who live here don't contribute a dime towards income taxes which is the tax that is spent for our social goodies, military, and just about any other federal spending outside of Social Security and Medicare--most of which is funded by payroll taxes.

To me progressive tax rates are despicable.

Nobody should get a free ride. The inner city ghetto asshole that has never worked a day in his sorry life benefits just as much from national defense as the a billionaire but yet the ghetto asshole doesn't have to pay anything to get the benefit.

The progressive income tax is oppressive and unfair because it taxes people unequally.

If these Moon Bats had to pay their fair share of the cost of government maybe they wouldn't be inclined to vote for big government Liberals when they got the bill, would they?

One of the things that these Moon Bats are really confused about is the corporate tax. Those dumbasses don't even know that they are the ones paying the tax whenever they buy something made by a corporation. The dumbshits think somebody else pays it.

Which is why they applaud it when the Democrats suggest to increase those taxes.

I have no problem helping people out, but only the ones who truly need it. Our social programs have become a vote buying mechanism for the left which is what I disapprove of. They don't hand out those goodies because people have no choice, they hand them out to buy votes.

If it doesn't cost you a dime, why not support somebody like Hillary with her free this and free that? Oh, we want to invest 500 billion dollars into clean air and water. Okay with me, as long as I'm not paying for it!

The problem with our election system is it allows people to vote money out of the pockets of others. That's why we all need a dog in this fight. I think a consumption tax would be fair. The more you buy, the more you pay. You want free college, than your consumption tax goes from 7 cents on the dollar to 9 cents. You want to double the food stamp role like Obama did, then your consumption tax goes from 9 cents on the dollar to 10 cents on the dollar.

If these issues meant actual money to people, they would think twice about lending their support for their spending.

Charity should be voluntary and not forced at the barrel of a gun by an oppressive government.

One of the reason we have so many idiots voting for big government Liberals is because those idiots don't have to pay the bill run up by the big government Liberals.

If they had to pay the bill then they wouldn't be so stupid.

 

[Flash]

[Q


Most charities are rackets like the Clinton Foundation. Where have you been.?

And the fact remains that lebron has a job of no social value. THINK

Then don't give your money to any of those charities. The government is even a bigger racket.

I think it is apparent to anybody that Barack Hussein Obama is of no social value.