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

[danielpalos]

They have all the money.
What percentage of their income do they need to survive?
Everyone should earn enough to survive and afford to go to college so they can better themselves. Otherwise you create the slave class.

In a free country, it's not up to "us" to determine what people need to survive. Everybody has a different opinion of that.

The failed thinking of the left is that all money belongs to the people, and it's up to government to determine what we all should be allowed to have. That's not what we do in a free capitalist society--that's what they do in socialist, Communist and dictatorships. Outside of the government, everybody in Cuba is equal......equally poor. Is that the kind of country you want?

I don't want to live in the kind of country that allow the poor to starve and whither away like in Hong Kong

, or in coffin homes like in Japan

or like in third world countries in garbage pits and bamboo huts. You might not care about your fellow men I do, especially when I'll probably end up one of them.

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

can it be immoral, to solve simple poverty and tax the rich into Heaven, at the same time?

Let me tell you a little personal story of something that happened to me as a child back in the 60's.

I was with my father driving through a bad part of town. As I looked upon the despair, I turned to my father and said "I wish I had a million dollars." My father asked why? I said "So I could give it to these people so they could move out of here."

My father looked at me with a smile and said "Son, you could give each and every one of these people a million dollars, and in just a few years, they would be right back here in this neighborhood."

I didn't understand what he meant until I got older. But what he was telling me is that money doesn't solve poverty. In fact, books have been written on lottery winners where the money made their life a living hell.

That begs the question: If we could tax every millionaire at 90%, how would that help you? Of sure, it would give the government more money, but how would that help you?

The answer is it doesn't. If you give people money that aren't responsible enough to have that money, you could be doing them more harm than good.

Only the right wing believes that; and, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

By solving for simple poverty, economics can be learned, eventually.

 

[danielpalos]

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

You're knocking down a straw man. No one is pushing for giving the poor a lifestyle like the rich. But there is something wrong when CEOs are paid 300 times what their workers are paid.

And what might that "wrong" be? More to the point, what business is it of yours? Did you invest in that company?

what business is it of the rich how much the poor make or how they make it? Did the rich pay any personal income taxes?

 

[danielpalos]

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

You're knocking down a straw man. No one is pushing for giving the poor a lifestyle like the rich. But there is something wrong when CEOs are paid 300 times what their workers are paid.

Why is there something wrong with that? Don't companies have the right to choose who they pay what to?

And the free market corrects. If that CEO is being paid beyond what he's worth to the company, or the workers are being paid less than they're worth, the company won't be around for very long.

Agreed. If a CEO is getting paid 12 million dollars a year, chances are, that CEO is bringing in 20 million a year to the company. If the company doesn't want to pay that CEO 12 million dollars a year, their competitor will, and they will make that profit instead and perhaps put that first company out of business.

Pay workers more and the CEO less, that's likely to happen, but some people just don't get that.

How did that work for Enron?

 

[danielpalos]

I don't want to live in the kind of country that allow the poor to starve and whither away like in Hong Kong

, or in coffin homes like in Japan

or like in third world countries in garbage pits and bamboo huts. You might not care about your fellow men I do, especially when I'll probably end up one of them.

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

At minimum, those eeking out a living shouldn't be taxed out of the money they need to survive on. Education should be provided for the ones willing to accel. And anyone who works for a living should earn a living.

What's wrong with providing your own education? We live in a country where you can take loans out to pursue your dreams.

My nephew is 31 years old now, and he is still paying off his college loans as is his wife. This is on top of the loans my sister took for him that will have her repaying until after retirement.

Education is an investment no different than investing in other things like the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, or any other. An investment is where you spend your own money hoping to get that money back plus a profit.

What is wrong is if you don't give people the opportunity to get out of poverty it's inhumane. They become a slave class with no hope of ever succeeding. Then you create a fake religion so they stupidly think they'll be rewarded in the next life in order to placate the lower classes.

Incorporated - Season 1

What I'd like to know is how we don't give people the opportunity to get out of poverty. Nobody is stoping anybody from working or working more hours. Nobody is stopping anybody from getting training to learn a new career.

Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment for the sake of profit for the rich, helps do that.

 

[danielpalos]

[

Let me tell you a little personal story of something that happened to me as a child back in the 60's.

I was with my father driving through a bad part of town. As I looked upon the despair, I turned to my father and said "I wish I had a million dollars." My father asked why? I said "So I could give it to these people so they could move out of here."

My father looked at me with a smile and said "Son, you could give each and every one of these people a million dollars, and in just a few years, they would be right back here in this neighborhood."

I didn't understand what he meant until I got older. But what he was telling me is that money doesn't solve poverty. In fact, books have been written on lottery winners where the money made their life a living hell.

That begs the question: If we could tax every millionaire at 90%, how would that help you? Of sure, it would give the government more money, but how would that help you?

The answer is it doesn't. If you give people money that aren't responsible enough to have that money, you could be doing them more harm than good.

The Libtard answer for everything is to throw more money at it. Only they don't want to throw their money, they want to throw other people's money.

socialism at its finest; when solving simple poverty and taxing the rich into Heaven.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

You're knocking down a straw man. No one is pushing for giving the poor a lifestyle like the rich. But there is something wrong when CEOs are paid 300 times what their workers are paid.

Why is there something wrong with that? Don't companies have the right to choose who they pay what to?

And the free market corrects. If that CEO is being paid beyond what he's worth to the company, or the workers are being paid less than they're worth, the company won't be around for very long.

Agreed. If a CEO is getting paid 12 million dollars a year, chances are, that CEO is bringing in 20 million a year to the company. If the company doesn't want to pay that CEO 12 million dollars a year, their competitor will, and they will make that profit instead and perhaps put that first company out of business.

Pay workers more and the CEO less, that's likely to happen, but some people just don't get that.

How did that work for Enron?

It doesn't work for everybody, just most companies. CEO's get hired and fired all the time. No place is home. They have to pickup their family and move all the time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In a free country, it's not up to "us" to determine what people need to survive. Everybody has a different opinion of that.

The failed thinking of the left is that all money belongs to the people, and it's up to government to determine what we all should be allowed to have. That's not what we do in a free capitalist society--that's what they do in socialist, Communist and dictatorships. Outside of the government, everybody in Cuba is equal......equally poor. Is that the kind of country you want?

I don't want to live in the kind of country that allow the poor to starve and whither away like in Hong Kong

, or in coffin homes like in Japan

or like in third world countries in garbage pits and bamboo huts. You might not care about your fellow men I do, especially when I'll probably end up one of them.

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

can it be immoral, to solve simple poverty and tax the rich into Heaven, at the same time?

Let me tell you a little personal story of something that happened to me as a child back in the 60's.

I was with my father driving through a bad part of town. As I looked upon the despair, I turned to my father and said "I wish I had a million dollars." My father asked why? I said "So I could give it to these people so they could move out of here."

My father looked at me with a smile and said "Son, you could give each and every one of these people a million dollars, and in just a few years, they would be right back here in this neighborhood."

I didn't understand what he meant until I got older. But what he was telling me is that money doesn't solve poverty. In fact, books have been written on lottery winners where the money made their life a living hell.

That begs the question: If we could tax every millionaire at 90%, how would that help you? Of sure, it would give the government more money, but how would that help you?

The answer is it doesn't. If you give people money that aren't responsible enough to have that money, you could be doing them more harm than good.

Only the right wing believes that; and, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

By solving for simple poverty, economics can be learned, eventually.

You can't solve poverty in this country because of the Democrats. The less poor people there are, the less Democrat votes and they know it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[Q

no, i mean like equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will.

If we really had employment at will then the fucking oppressive government wouldn't be in the business of dictating minimum wages, would they?

they wouldn't need to dictate statutory minimum wages, with unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis. the right has the most problem with equal protection of the law.

Equal protection under the law for what?????

employment at will.

In other words, you have no idea what equal protection under the law means. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Flash]

[Q


In other words, you have no idea what equal protection under the law means. Why am I not surprised?

He thinks that "equal protection" means that the government should give him a welfare check as big as the paycheck of a Corporate Executive because then they both will be equal.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You're knocking down a straw man. No one is pushing for giving the poor a lifestyle like the rich. But there is something wrong when CEOs are paid 300 times what their workers are paid.

Why is there something wrong with that? Don't companies have the right to choose who they pay what to?

Yes there is something wrong with that. The workers do the actual work. The CEO should get maybe 5 times as much.

And yes companies have the legal right to pay as they wish.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're knocking down a straw man. No one is pushing for giving the poor a lifestyle like the rich. But there is something wrong when CEOs are paid 300 times what their workers are paid.

Why is there something wrong with that? Don't companies have the right to choose who they pay what to?

Yes there is something wrong with that. The workers do the actual work. The CEO should get maybe 5 times as much.

And yes companies have the legal right to pay as they wish.

And that's exactly what they do, so where is your argument?

If a company is paying their workers on average $30,000 per year, a CEO should only make $150,000 a year? How long do you think a company could stay open with a CEO willing to work for that low of wages? Who would even want to be a CEO? They could use that talent in other forms of work where they would make much more money.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Education is an investment no different than investing in other things like the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, or any other. An investment is where you spend your own money hoping to get that money back plus a profit.

HAHAHA. For the kids who study STEM it may be an investment, but for everyone else in college it's just 4 years of partying.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[Q


In other words, you have no idea what equal protection under the law means. Why am I not surprised?

He thinks that "equal protection" means that the government should give him a welfare check as big as the paycheck of a Corporate Executive because then they both will be equal.

They really believe that too. They think equal protection means equal outcome.

Our government doesn't guarantee happiness, but they guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Liberals just don't get that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Education is an investment no different than investing in other things like the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, or any other. An investment is where you spend your own money hoping to get that money back plus a profit.

HAHAHA. For the kids who study STEM it may be an investment, but for everyone else in college it's just 4 years of partying.

That's true which is another reason why taxpayers shouldn't be funding it.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If a company is paying their workers on average $30,000 per year, a CEO should only make $150,000 a year? How long do you think a company could stay open with a CEO willing to work for that low of wages? Who would even want to be a CEO? They could use that talent in other forms of work where they would make much more money.

What talent do most CEOs have?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

So.........you want every citizen over age 18 to be given $1000/week tax free if they choose not to work. Or if they work at $500/wk ......... you want them bumped up to $1000. Up to SSI age where it all would stop?
lets see.........100mil not working at $1000/wk = $100Bil/wk or $5.2T/yr.
Where do the funds come from? forgot, do illegals get paid also?

$1000 a week ? And tax free?? That would be like a job that pays $70,000 a year!!! No one is fighting for welfare that lavish.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

And the free market corrects. If that CEO is being paid beyond what he's worth to the company, or the workers are being paid less than they're worth, the company won't be around for very long.

HAHAHA. Yeah - in a perfect world. But in the real world CEOs are way overpaid.

 

[teapartysamurai]

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.

I

I work at a drug store and I see plenty of people use their ebt card to buy energy drinks, pop, and candy.

I one time had to bite my tongue as two people bought 30 dollars worth of candy on an ebt card. Laughing about how they had a sweet tooth. I thought, "I hope you will enjoy that candy because you aren't paying for it, I am!"

I don't think EBT should be as restricted as the op, but if people want, pop, energy drinks, potato chips and candy they should buy it with their own money. Leave EBT for actual FOOD.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If a company is paying their workers on average $30,000 per year, a CEO should only make $150,000 a year? How long do you think a company could stay open with a CEO willing to work for that low of wages? Who would even want to be a CEO? They could use that talent in other forms of work where they would make much more money.

What talent do most CEOs have?

Running a company is something most of us could never do. That's why CEO's get paid that kind of money. Besides all the education, they have climbed their way up the ladder, spent decades proving themselves and making business ties, political ties, Wall Street ties, then they have to have a pretty good past performance before they make nearly the kind of money MSM and left-wing blogs report on.

If it was a job anybody could do, I'd be doing it.

 

[Slyhunter]

I don't want to live in the kind of country that allow the poor to starve and whither away like in Hong Kong

, or in coffin homes like in Japan

or like in third world countries in garbage pits and bamboo huts. You might not care about your fellow men I do, especially when I'll probably end up one of them.

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

At minimum, those eeking out a living shouldn't be taxed out of the money they need to survive on. Education should be provided for the ones willing to accel. And anyone who works for a living should earn a living.

What's wrong with providing your own education? We live in a country where you can take loans out to pursue your dreams.

My nephew is 31 years old now, and he is still paying off his college loans as is his wife. This is on top of the loans my sister took for him that will have her repaying until after retirement.

Education is an investment no different than investing in other things like the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, or any other. An investment is where you spend your own money hoping to get that money back plus a profit.

What is wrong is if you don't give people the opportunity to get out of poverty it's inhumane. They become a slave class with no hope of ever succeeding. Then you create a fake religion so they stupidly think they'll be rewarded in the next life in order to placate the lower classes.

Incorporated - Season 1

What I'd like to know is how we don't give people the opportunity to get out of poverty. Nobody is stoping anybody from working or working more hours. Nobody is stopping anybody from getting training to learn a new career.

There are people who work every waking minute and they don't make enough money to live decently much less go to college. I myself can't find decent work. I type 85 wpm, I program in COBOL, 10 key 14kph, and nobody hires me. I make my money working for myself undercutting other people and barely squeaking out a profit. Besides I'm worn out. My skills are decades outdated but I simply can't do college not only because I don't have the money and the time or the transportation (my car got repo'd) but I also don't have the energy. I'm burnt out. I'm tired of fighting a loosing battle. I am long past ready for retirement.