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

[danielpalos]

[

Now, to equal protection: It was originally put in the Constitution to guarantee blacks equal rights to whites. .

And now, thanks to affirmative action, it's the whites who are routinely denied equal protection. Been going on for 50 years.

only matters if you are poor. if you are rich, you can always ask for a bailout from daddy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

equal protection of the law; not your fantastical right wing, strawman arguments that you can easily beat, to "look tough".

You look dumber and dumber when you talk about Equal Protection under the law because you don't have a clue what it means. Stick to things you might know something about.

projecting much? i actually have a valid argument, why don't you? mooching and slacking, and blaming the poor on the left?

I do blame the poor on the left. They promote poverty. Long ago their women's movement promoted single-parent families which are directly related to poverty. Fast forward to today, over 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock.

Their idiotic social programs gave them cover to remain poor while being able to live on the government just the same as working. They promoted the poor having children that locked most into poverty for life with virtually no escape.

Now, to equal protection: It was originally put in the Constitution to guarantee blacks equal rights to whites. It guarantees you that the law will treat you the same as somebody else. It has nothing to do with unemployment unless you were denied unemployment benefits while somebody in your same situation got those benefits.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Hooverville failed as an ideology; only the right likes to repeat historical mistakes after 1929.

A comment that makes absolutely no sense to my reply.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

maybe, but, the rich may get to keep their multimillion dollar bonus while on means tested corporate welfare; the poor don't get that option.

Yes they get to keep it, just like an actress keeps her 10 mil for doing a movie that turned out to be a flop, or a musician that got paid 2 mil for a recording that didn't sell very well. That's how contracts work.

not on means tested welfare for the poor.

Welfare for the poor is not a job yet alone a contract job.

neither is corporate welfare.

There is no corporate welfare. That's a term the left created to use instead of tax breaks. Tax breaks are not welfare of any kind. Welfare is not the government allowing you to keep your very own money. Welfare is government giving you somebody else's money.

 

[danielpalos]

equal protection of the law; not your fantastical right wing, strawman arguments that you can easily beat, to "look tough".

You look dumber and dumber when you talk about Equal Protection under the law because you don't have a clue what it means. Stick to things you might know something about.

projecting much? i actually have a valid argument, why don't you? mooching and slacking, and blaming the poor on the left?

I do blame the poor on the left. They promote poverty. Long ago their women's movement promoted single-parent families which are directly related to poverty. Fast forward to today, over 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock.

Their idiotic social programs gave them cover to remain poor while being able to live on the government just the same as working. They promoted the poor having children that locked most into poverty for life with virtually no escape.

Now, to equal protection: It was originally put in the Constitution to guarantee blacks equal rights to whites. It guarantees you that the law will treat you the same as somebody else. It has nothing to do with unemployment unless you were denied unemployment benefits while somebody in your same situation got those benefits.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Hooverville failed as an ideology; only the right likes to repeat historical mistakes after 1929.

A comment that makes absolutely no sense to my reply.

Promote and provide are in our federal Constitution regarding the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

maybe, but, the rich may get to keep their multimillion dollar bonus while on means tested corporate welfare; the poor don't get that option.

Yes they get to keep it, just like an actress keeps her 10 mil for doing a movie that turned out to be a flop, or a musician that got paid 2 mil for a recording that didn't sell very well. That's how contracts work.

not on means tested welfare for the poor.

Welfare for the poor is not a job yet alone a contract job.

neither is corporate welfare.

There is no corporate welfare. That's a term the left created to use instead of tax breaks. Tax breaks are not welfare of any kind. Welfare is not the government allowing you to keep your very own money. Welfare is government giving you somebody else's money.

a bailout is corporate welfare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You look dumber and dumber when you talk about Equal Protection under the law because you don't have a clue what it means. Stick to things you might know something about.

projecting much? i actually have a valid argument, why don't you? mooching and slacking, and blaming the poor on the left?

I do blame the poor on the left. They promote poverty. Long ago their women's movement promoted single-parent families which are directly related to poverty. Fast forward to today, over 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock.

Their idiotic social programs gave them cover to remain poor while being able to live on the government just the same as working. They promoted the poor having children that locked most into poverty for life with virtually no escape.

Now, to equal protection: It was originally put in the Constitution to guarantee blacks equal rights to whites. It guarantees you that the law will treat you the same as somebody else. It has nothing to do with unemployment unless you were denied unemployment benefits while somebody in your same situation got those benefits.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Hooverville failed as an ideology; only the right likes to repeat historical mistakes after 1929.

A comment that makes absolutely no sense to my reply.

Promote and provide are in our federal Constitution regarding the general welfare.

And that's been explained already with several quotes from James Madison. The problem is you just refuse to believe them.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

There is no corporate welfare. That's a term the left created to use instead of tax breaks. Tax breaks are not welfare of any kind. Welfare is not the government allowing you to keep your very own money. Welfare is government giving you somebody else's money.

And obozo has admitted he gave his banker controllers trillions of dollars.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Promote and provide are in our federal Constitution regarding the general welfare.

Yes "promote the general welfare" is is the preamble. Left unsaid is the obvious qualifier "consistent with the listed powers of congress".

 

[danielpalos]

projecting much? i actually have a valid argument, why don't you? mooching and slacking, and blaming the poor on the left?

I do blame the poor on the left. They promote poverty. Long ago their women's movement promoted single-parent families which are directly related to poverty. Fast forward to today, over 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock.

Their idiotic social programs gave them cover to remain poor while being able to live on the government just the same as working. They promoted the poor having children that locked most into poverty for life with virtually no escape.

Now, to equal protection: It was originally put in the Constitution to guarantee blacks equal rights to whites. It guarantees you that the law will treat you the same as somebody else. It has nothing to do with unemployment unless you were denied unemployment benefits while somebody in your same situation got those benefits.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Hooverville failed as an ideology; only the right likes to repeat historical mistakes after 1929.

A comment that makes absolutely no sense to my reply.

Promote and provide are in our federal Constitution regarding the general welfare.

And that's been explained already with several quotes from James Madison. The problem is you just refuse to believe them.

I believe them more than you do. It is almost a religion, for some on the left.

 

[danielpalos]

Promote and provide are in our federal Constitution regarding the general welfare.

Yes "promote the general welfare" is is the preamble. Left unsaid is the obvious qualifier "consistent with the listed powers of congress".

Providing for the general welfare is also in our federal Constitution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

"The actual work"? So basically, you're some unskilled dipwad who's never been allowed anywhere near the administrative offices of any of your employers, and thinks people who wear suits to work get paid to sit around with their feet up on the desk, smoking cigars.

Thanks for sharing. Now sit down and shut up while the educated adults have a serious conversation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, that explains WHY you're such a monumentally uninformed nimrod.

Just for the record, my husband has a degree in creative writing, which he has parlayed into good jobs with basically any employer who wants someone who can communicate effectively and persuasively in writing.

Every time you open your flapping head hole, you reveal what an incredibly narrow, ignorant, circumscribed life you've led, and that's really all you manage to illuminate. You are a classic example of someone who has accidentally stumbled upon one or two correct positions without the first notion of WHY they're correct or how to argue in favor of them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Tell you what, Chuckles. You tell us what you think a CEO does, and then maybe we'll enlighten you as to what they ACTUALLY do, and what talents and skills it requires.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

have you "read the latest memo" from the alt-left?

It cannot be real times of war sufficient to cede our natural rights and Individual and civil Liberty, without real times of War, Tax Rates.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Only in right wing fantasy can our Republic engage in social policies on a national basis, by lowering Tax Rates.

 

[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?

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.

i agree to disagree. the right may also fear some competition, if their constituency doesn't have to resort to crony capitalism.

 

[SharpArrowhead]

I would include fruits and vegetables in there as well.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I would include fruits and vegetables in there as well.

Lots of those foods are expensive. Bananas and potatoes and onions would be ok.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

So basically, you're some unskilled dipwad who's never been allowed anywhere near the administrative offices of any of your employers, and thinks people who wear suits to work get paid to sit around with their feet up on the desk, smoking cigars.

They also spend a lot of time at "conferences", Anyway - i don't mind them making a little more than the real employees. But 300 times more??? That's indefensible and even a nitwit like you should be able to see that. THINK

 

[Cecilie1200]

So basically, you're some unskilled dipwad who's never been allowed anywhere near the administrative offices of any of your employers, and thinks people who wear suits to work get paid to sit around with their feet up on the desk, smoking cigars.

They also spend a lot of time at "conferences", Anyway - i don't mind them making a little more than the real employees. But 300 times more??? That's indefensible and even a nitwit like you should be able to see that. THINK

They have no need to defend it to you, because it's not your money. I'm not surprised a nitwit like you can't see that. I'd say, "THINK", but you're clearly underequipped for it.

As for "a lot of time at conferences", how do you know? What conferences? How much time? Prove it. There is literally nothing about "ShootSpeeders made a vague accusation" that shouts "Believe this!" to me, so say something that's worth the neurons at some point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would include fruits and vegetables in there as well.

Lots of those foods are expensive. Bananas and potatoes and onions would be ok.

Still waiting for you to explain what useful societal good is served by catering to your personal definition of "okay" beyond satisfying your petty vindictiveness. Any time you have something to contribute beyond your own bile, please feel free to put it right on out there.