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

[Conservative65]

"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.

So only the executives are working in your book. You're not an educated adult. You're an idiot who has bought the conservative lie hook, line and sinker.

In the past 30 years, worker wages, as a percentage of GDP, has consistently declined, while productivity has consistently increased. While some of this increased productivity has been due to automation, the bald fact is that until Reagan changed the tax code, worker wages kept pace with other costs in manufacturing. Corporations are paying the workers about the same as they were paying them in the Guilded Age, in terms of a percentage of overall costs.

Since 1980, corporations have faced increases in the costs of materials, property, utilities, and executive wages. The ONLY component in low level manufacturing that has stayed the same, and in real terms, actually gone down, is the cost of labour.

The part you fail to acknowledge is that the workers are making the products that the executives sell. No executive is worth 200 times more than the guy making this products. Nobody.

Once Reagan began attacking unions, and passing legislation favouring large corporations, mergers and higher earned income credits rather than increases in the minimum wage. Funny how corporations can deal with ALL of these highers costs, but paying a living wage to EVERYONE who works for these large corporations would lead to their destruction.

Lies that conservatives tell you to justify their greed. How is it that McDonalds, Walmart, and all of these other multi-nationals manage to pay a living wage is countries other than the USA, and yet Walmart, for example, is still the most profitable company in Canada? It's because conservative governments in the US allow them to use taxpayer funded subsidies to pay their workers.

This is the grossest misuse of public funds I can think of. Corporations should be required to pay a living wage to their workers. Those who can't, should be closed. No taxpayers money should be given to those who work full-time, for less than living wages.

No one said those making a low wage weren't working. I've said that the skills required to do their jobs, something that isn't but one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, don't pay much nor should they. If your job, for example, is custodial work, what makes you think that skills my children learned at less than 10 years old is worth even the current minimum wage?

I agree that no taxpayer money should be given to someone with low skills and wages. Nor should the government dictate what those wages should be. The problem, despite what you say, isn't the ones doing the paying but the ones offering such shitty skills they can't cut it. No one should be paid a living wage simply because they breath. They should earn it or do without.

 

[Conservative65]

Only the ring wing is cognitively dissonant enough to claim to be for Individual Liberty, while insisting on micromanaging the poor.

Only the left wing is cognitively dissonant enough to think someone else being forced to provide you with the basics of life comes anywhere close to you being personally responsible. It's not micromanaging. It's making sure that the government is good stewards of the taxpayer's money.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

continuing education makes more sense than requiring a work ethic, even in Right to Work States.

Only if the education is in STEM. We don't need more loonybird libs with degrees in Ancient Etruscan Mythology.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The reason CEO's make the money they do is because few have the ability to do their job. Don't you think that if a company could get a person to do the same job for half the cost, they would do it in a heartbeat?

That's true for small companies but not the big ones. Big company CEOs are paid for their skill at bribing congressmen and judges. The one accepting the bribe needs to know it's not a sting operation.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

How would a CEO do that? A CEO has no access to tax money and no authority to spend it.

HAHAHA. Did you really say that. Your god obama handed out trillions of tax dollars to CEOs at the banks, insurance companies, and GM.

 

[danielpalos]

Which brings us back to the point that it's really none of your business what people eat. And before you come back with, "It's my tax money, so that makes it my business!" let me just point out that you're buying into left-think. Rather than taking the TRUE conservative position of "I have a problem with the government using my tax money to just hand out checks" - or EBT credits, in this case - you're suggesting that we go even farther into leftist micromanaging of people's lives by not only making them dependent, but then trying to tell them what they can and can't eat. Increasing government control and direction of people's lives is never a good thing, and will not achieve anything truly positive, like moving them toward independence. It will just encourage them to be more dependent on the government to tell them what to do, like increasingly dumber robots.

When I think of government dependency, I think of freedom limitations.

It's kind of like when you (or somebody you knew) turned 18 while still living with their parents. Yes, you are of legal age, but that doesn't mean you do whatever the hell you want.......at least not while living under this roof.

You still can't smoke in the house. You can't bring your friends over for a night of drinking. No, your girlfriend cannot sleep over. You will be home by 12:00 am weekends included.

When somebody is supplying your shelter, you still have very limited freedoms. If you want much more freedom, move the hell out of your parents house and get your own apartment. Of course if the parents are very liberal and allow such things, then it will take much longer for that kid to move out of the house.

I understand what you are saying and I don't think there is an advantage of food restrictions while on food stamps, but like I said, the more liberal the program is, the less likely people will want to get off of it.

Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment, may be too liberal.

 

[danielpalos]

"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.

So only the executives are working in your book. You're not an educated adult. You're an idiot who has bought the conservative lie hook, line and sinker.

In the past 30 years, worker wages, as a percentage of GDP, has consistently declined, while productivity has consistently increased. While some of this increased productivity has been due to automation, the bald fact is that until Reagan changed the tax code, worker wages kept pace with other costs in manufacturing. Corporations are paying the workers about the same as they were paying them in the Guilded Age, in terms of a percentage of overall costs.

Since 1980, corporations have faced increases in the costs of materials, property, utilities, and executive wages. The ONLY component in low level manufacturing that has stayed the same, and in real terms, actually gone down, is the cost of labour.

The part you fail to acknowledge is that the workers are making the products that the executives sell. No executive is worth 200 times more than the guy making this products. Nobody.

Once Reagan began attacking unions, and passing legislation favouring large corporations, mergers and higher earned income credits rather than increases in the minimum wage. Funny how corporations can deal with ALL of these highers costs, but paying a living wage to EVERYONE who works for these large corporations would lead to their destruction.

Lies that conservatives tell you to justify their greed. How is it that McDonalds, Walmart, and all of these other multi-nationals manage to pay a living wage is countries other than the USA, and yet Walmart, for example, is still the most profitable company in Canada? It's because conservative governments in the US allow them to use taxpayer funded subsidies to pay their workers.

This is the grossest misuse of public funds I can think of. Corporations should be required to pay a living wage to their workers. Those who can't, should be closed. No taxpayers money should be given to those who work full-time, for less than living wages.

No one said those making a low wage weren't working. I've said that the skills required to do their jobs, something that isn't but one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, don't pay much nor should they. If your job, for example, is custodial work, what makes you think that skills my children learned at less than 10 years old is worth even the current minimum wage?

I agree that no taxpayer money should be given to someone with low skills and wages. Nor should the government dictate what those wages should be. The problem, despite what you say, isn't the ones doing the paying but the ones offering such shitty skills they can't cut it. No one should be paid a living wage simply because they breath. They should earn it or do without.

the only problem with means tested welfare for the poor, is they cannot keep their bonuses, like the rich can on means tested welfare for the rich.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the ring wing is cognitively dissonant enough to claim to be for Individual Liberty, while insisting on micromanaging the poor.

Only the left wing is cognitively dissonant enough to think someone else being forced to provide you with the basics of life comes anywhere close to you being personally responsible. It's not micromanaging. It's making sure that the government is good stewards of the taxpayer's money.

Capitalism died in 1929. Socialism has been, bailing out capitalism, ever since.

We don't need, "basic drug war services".

 

[danielpalos]

continuing education makes more sense than requiring a work ethic, even in Right to Work States.

Only if the education is in STEM. We don't need more loonybird libs with degrees in Ancient Etruscan Mythology.

does it matter; capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment; even if everyone obtains a doctorate. only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

How would a CEO do that? A CEO has no access to tax money and no authority to spend it.

HAHAHA. Did you really say that. Your god obama handed out trillions of tax dollars to CEOs at the banks, insurance companies, and GM.

why no food restrictions, for them?

 

[Conservative65]

"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.

So only the executives are working in your book. You're not an educated adult. You're an idiot who has bought the conservative lie hook, line and sinker.

In the past 30 years, worker wages, as a percentage of GDP, has consistently declined, while productivity has consistently increased. While some of this increased productivity has been due to automation, the bald fact is that until Reagan changed the tax code, worker wages kept pace with other costs in manufacturing. Corporations are paying the workers about the same as they were paying them in the Guilded Age, in terms of a percentage of overall costs.

Since 1980, corporations have faced increases in the costs of materials, property, utilities, and executive wages. The ONLY component in low level manufacturing that has stayed the same, and in real terms, actually gone down, is the cost of labour.

The part you fail to acknowledge is that the workers are making the products that the executives sell. No executive is worth 200 times more than the guy making this products. Nobody.

Once Reagan began attacking unions, and passing legislation favouring large corporations, mergers and higher earned income credits rather than increases in the minimum wage. Funny how corporations can deal with ALL of these highers costs, but paying a living wage to EVERYONE who works for these large corporations would lead to their destruction.

Lies that conservatives tell you to justify their greed. How is it that McDonalds, Walmart, and all of these other multi-nationals manage to pay a living wage is countries other than the USA, and yet Walmart, for example, is still the most profitable company in Canada? It's because conservative governments in the US allow them to use taxpayer funded subsidies to pay their workers.

This is the grossest misuse of public funds I can think of. Corporations should be required to pay a living wage to their workers. Those who can't, should be closed. No taxpayers money should be given to those who work full-time, for less than living wages.

No one said those making a low wage weren't working. I've said that the skills required to do their jobs, something that isn't but one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, don't pay much nor should they. If your job, for example, is custodial work, what makes you think that skills my children learned at less than 10 years old is worth even the current minimum wage?

I agree that no taxpayer money should be given to someone with low skills and wages. Nor should the government dictate what those wages should be. The problem, despite what you say, isn't the ones doing the paying but the ones offering such shitty skills they can't cut it. No one should be paid a living wage simply because they breath. They should earn it or do without.

the only problem with means tested welfare for the poor, is they cannot keep their bonuses, like the rich can on means tested welfare for the rich.

There is no such thing as welfare for the rich.

 

[danielpalos]

"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.

So only the executives are working in your book. You're not an educated adult. You're an idiot who has bought the conservative lie hook, line and sinker.

In the past 30 years, worker wages, as a percentage of GDP, has consistently declined, while productivity has consistently increased. While some of this increased productivity has been due to automation, the bald fact is that until Reagan changed the tax code, worker wages kept pace with other costs in manufacturing. Corporations are paying the workers about the same as they were paying them in the Guilded Age, in terms of a percentage of overall costs.

Since 1980, corporations have faced increases in the costs of materials, property, utilities, and executive wages. The ONLY component in low level manufacturing that has stayed the same, and in real terms, actually gone down, is the cost of labour.

The part you fail to acknowledge is that the workers are making the products that the executives sell. No executive is worth 200 times more than the guy making this products. Nobody.

Once Reagan began attacking unions, and passing legislation favouring large corporations, mergers and higher earned income credits rather than increases in the minimum wage. Funny how corporations can deal with ALL of these highers costs, but paying a living wage to EVERYONE who works for these large corporations would lead to their destruction.

Lies that conservatives tell you to justify their greed. How is it that McDonalds, Walmart, and all of these other multi-nationals manage to pay a living wage is countries other than the USA, and yet Walmart, for example, is still the most profitable company in Canada? It's because conservative governments in the US allow them to use taxpayer funded subsidies to pay their workers.

This is the grossest misuse of public funds I can think of. Corporations should be required to pay a living wage to their workers. Those who can't, should be closed. No taxpayers money should be given to those who work full-time, for less than living wages.

No one said those making a low wage weren't working. I've said that the skills required to do their jobs, something that isn't but one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, don't pay much nor should they. If your job, for example, is custodial work, what makes you think that skills my children learned at less than 10 years old is worth even the current minimum wage?

I agree that no taxpayer money should be given to someone with low skills and wages. Nor should the government dictate what those wages should be. The problem, despite what you say, isn't the ones doing the paying but the ones offering such shitty skills they can't cut it. No one should be paid a living wage simply because they breath. They should earn it or do without.

the only problem with means tested welfare for the poor, is they cannot keep their bonuses, like the rich can on means tested welfare for the rich.

There is no such thing as welfare for the rich.

not even corporate welfare?

 

[Conservative65]

How would a CEO do that? A CEO has no access to tax money and no authority to spend it.

HAHAHA. Did you really say that. Your god obama handed out trillions of tax dollars to CEOs at the banks, insurance companies, and GM.

why no food restrictions, for them?

"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.

So only the executives are working in your book. You're not an educated adult. You're an idiot who has bought the conservative lie hook, line and sinker.

In the past 30 years, worker wages, as a percentage of GDP, has consistently declined, while productivity has consistently increased. While some of this increased productivity has been due to automation, the bald fact is that until Reagan changed the tax code, worker wages kept pace with other costs in manufacturing. Corporations are paying the workers about the same as they were paying them in the Guilded Age, in terms of a percentage of overall costs.

Since 1980, corporations have faced increases in the costs of materials, property, utilities, and executive wages. The ONLY component in low level manufacturing that has stayed the same, and in real terms, actually gone down, is the cost of labour.

The part you fail to acknowledge is that the workers are making the products that the executives sell. No executive is worth 200 times more than the guy making this products. Nobody.

Once Reagan began attacking unions, and passing legislation favouring large corporations, mergers and higher earned income credits rather than increases in the minimum wage. Funny how corporations can deal with ALL of these highers costs, but paying a living wage to EVERYONE who works for these large corporations would lead to their destruction.

Lies that conservatives tell you to justify their greed. How is it that McDonalds, Walmart, and all of these other multi-nationals manage to pay a living wage is countries other than the USA, and yet Walmart, for example, is still the most profitable company in Canada? It's because conservative governments in the US allow them to use taxpayer funded subsidies to pay their workers.

This is the grossest misuse of public funds I can think of. Corporations should be required to pay a living wage to their workers. Those who can't, should be closed. No taxpayers money should be given to those who work full-time, for less than living wages.

No one said those making a low wage weren't working. I've said that the skills required to do their jobs, something that isn't but one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, don't pay much nor should they. If your job, for example, is custodial work, what makes you think that skills my children learned at less than 10 years old is worth even the current minimum wage?

I agree that no taxpayer money should be given to someone with low skills and wages. Nor should the government dictate what those wages should be. The problem, despite what you say, isn't the ones doing the paying but the ones offering such shitty skills they can't cut it. No one should be paid a living wage simply because they breath. They should earn it or do without.

the only problem with means tested welfare for the poor, is they cannot keep their bonuses, like the rich can on means tested welfare for the rich.

There is no such thing as welfare for the rich.

not even corporate welfare?

No such thing.

 

[danielpalos]

How would a CEO do that? A CEO has no access to tax money and no authority to spend it.

HAHAHA. Did you really say that. Your god obama handed out trillions of tax dollars to CEOs at the banks, insurance companies, and GM.

why no food restrictions, for them?

So only the executives are working in your book. You're not an educated adult. You're an idiot who has bought the conservative lie hook, line and sinker.

In the past 30 years, worker wages, as a percentage of GDP, has consistently declined, while productivity has consistently increased. While some of this increased productivity has been due to automation, the bald fact is that until Reagan changed the tax code, worker wages kept pace with other costs in manufacturing. Corporations are paying the workers about the same as they were paying them in the Guilded Age, in terms of a percentage of overall costs.

Since 1980, corporations have faced increases in the costs of materials, property, utilities, and executive wages. The ONLY component in low level manufacturing that has stayed the same, and in real terms, actually gone down, is the cost of labour.

The part you fail to acknowledge is that the workers are making the products that the executives sell. No executive is worth 200 times more than the guy making this products. Nobody.

Once Reagan began attacking unions, and passing legislation favouring large corporations, mergers and higher earned income credits rather than increases in the minimum wage. Funny how corporations can deal with ALL of these highers costs, but paying a living wage to EVERYONE who works for these large corporations would lead to their destruction.

Lies that conservatives tell you to justify their greed. How is it that McDonalds, Walmart, and all of these other multi-nationals manage to pay a living wage is countries other than the USA, and yet Walmart, for example, is still the most profitable company in Canada? It's because conservative governments in the US allow them to use taxpayer funded subsidies to pay their workers.

This is the grossest misuse of public funds I can think of. Corporations should be required to pay a living wage to their workers. Those who can't, should be closed. No taxpayers money should be given to those who work full-time, for less than living wages.

No one said those making a low wage weren't working. I've said that the skills required to do their jobs, something that isn't but one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, don't pay much nor should they. If your job, for example, is custodial work, what makes you think that skills my children learned at less than 10 years old is worth even the current minimum wage?

I agree that no taxpayer money should be given to someone with low skills and wages. Nor should the government dictate what those wages should be. The problem, despite what you say, isn't the ones doing the paying but the ones offering such shitty skills they can't cut it. No one should be paid a living wage simply because they breath. They should earn it or do without.

the only problem with means tested welfare for the poor, is they cannot keep their bonuses, like the rich can on means tested welfare for the rich.

There is no such thing as welfare for the rich.

not even corporate welfare?

No such thing.

how about subsidies?

 

[Conservative65]

How would a CEO do that? A CEO has no access to tax money and no authority to spend it.

HAHAHA. Did you really say that. Your god obama handed out trillions of tax dollars to CEOs at the banks, insurance companies, and GM.

why no food restrictions, for them?

No one said those making a low wage weren't working. I've said that the skills required to do their jobs, something that isn't but one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, don't pay much nor should they. If your job, for example, is custodial work, what makes you think that skills my children learned at less than 10 years old is worth even the current minimum wage?

I agree that no taxpayer money should be given to someone with low skills and wages. Nor should the government dictate what those wages should be. The problem, despite what you say, isn't the ones doing the paying but the ones offering such shitty skills they can't cut it. No one should be paid a living wage simply because they breath. They should earn it or do without.

the only problem with means tested welfare for the poor, is they cannot keep their bonuses, like the rich can on means tested welfare for the rich.

There is no such thing as welfare for the rich.

not even corporate welfare?

No such thing.

how about subsidies?

Yeah, how about those subsidies to low income freeloaders that by getting them provide nothing back to society? How about the welfare given to low income freeloaders that don't provide a return to society?

 

[Dragonlady]

There is no such thing as welfare for the rich.

You're kidding aren't you? No corporate welfare?

Does the US government bill corporations whose property they protect when they send the military into a volatile region to protect "American interests"? If not, that's corporate welfare.

If you or I go to a dangerous country and get caught up in a dangerous coup, your family and friend will say "Why did you go there? You knew it wasn't safe", but when American corporations do business in such countries, the US government is always ready to send in the troups to protect their property, and I don't recall any American oil company or anyone else getting a bill when the US went into Kuwait, or Granada.

Or tax breaks to build factories in one town over another? Or "subsidies" to grow certain crops, or not to grow them as the case may be. Monsanto is allowed a monopoly on seed, and sues farmers who save seeds from one year to the next because of cross pollination, which forces farmers to purchase from them whether they want to or not.

When paid to corporations, they're "incentives", or "subsidies", or "research grants", but it's still taxpayer dollars being given to corporations. In my books, that's welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

How would a CEO do that? A CEO has no access to tax money and no authority to spend it.

HAHAHA. Did you really say that. Your god obama handed out trillions of tax dollars to CEOs at the banks, insurance companies, and GM.

why no food restrictions, for them?

the only problem with means tested welfare for the poor, is they cannot keep their bonuses, like the rich can on means tested welfare for the rich.

There is no such thing as welfare for the rich.

not even corporate welfare?

No such thing.

how about subsidies?

Yeah, how about those subsidies to low income freeloaders that by getting them provide nothing back to society? How about the welfare given to low income freeloaders that don't provide a return to society?

why do you believe, they return nothing to society?

and, if the rich can keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while on corporate, means tested subsidies, then why begrudge the poor, steak and lobster on their EBT cards.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no such thing as welfare for the rich.

You're kidding aren't you? No corporate welfare?

Does the US government bill corporations whose property they protect when they send the military into a volatile region to protect "American interests"? If not, that's corporate welfare.

If you or I go to a dangerous country and get caught up in a dangerous coup, your family and friend will say "Why did you go there? You knew it wasn't safe", but when American corporations do business in such countries, the US government is always ready to send in the troups to protect their property, and I don't recall any American oil company or anyone else getting a bill when the US went into Kuwait, or Granada.

Or tax breaks to build factories in one town over another? Or "subsidies" to grow certain crops, or not to grow them as the case may be. Monsanto is allowed a monopoly on seed, and sues farmers who save seeds from one year to the next because of cross pollination, which forces farmers to purchase from them whether they want to or not.

When paid to corporations, they're "incentives", or "subsidies", or "research grants", but it's still taxpayer dollars being given to corporations. In my books, that's welfare.

the right wing believes in capital worth, not social worth.

 

[Conservative65]

There is no such thing as welfare for the rich.

You're kidding aren't you? No corporate welfare?

Does the US government bill corporations whose property they protect when they send the military into a volatile region to protect "American interests"? If not, that's corporate welfare.

If you or I go to a dangerous country and get caught up in a dangerous coup, your family and friend will say "Why did you go there? You knew it wasn't safe", but when American corporations do business in such countries, the US government is always ready to send in the troups to protect their property, and I don't recall any American oil company or anyone else getting a bill when the US went into Kuwait, or Granada.

Or tax breaks to build factories in one town over another? Or "subsidies" to grow certain crops, or not to grow them as the case may be. Monsanto is allowed a monopoly on seed, and sues farmers who save seeds from one year to the next because of cross pollination, which forces farmers to purchase from them whether they want to or not.

When paid to corporations, they're "incentives", or "subsidies", or "research grants", but it's still taxpayer dollars being given to corporations. In my books, that's welfare.

It's not simply because some Liberal idiot told you it was.

You defeat our own argument. When something is welfare, it's given with no expectations of anything in return. With what you call corporate welfare, when he expectation is there to return something, it's not welfare.

If a single mother with three children by multiple sperm donors gets food stamps, WIC, government housing, Medicaid, and anything else she's unwilling to do for herself/her children, and there is no expectation of anything in return, that's welfare. When a company gets incentives, those incentives are there to entice that company to provide something in return that without that company it doesn't occur. Morons like you support "free" college to someone whose own parents won't do it claiming it will provide returns in the future yet completely oppose doing exactly the same thing for business. There's a greater chance that business will provide a meaningful return than someone being given college tuition because his/her sorry parents won't do it.

 

[Conservative65]

HAHAHA. Did you really say that. Your god obama handed out trillions of tax dollars to CEOs at the banks, insurance companies, and GM.

why no food restrictions, for them?

There is no such thing as welfare for the rich.

not even corporate welfare?

No such thing.

how about subsidies?

Yeah, how about those subsidies to low income freeloaders that by getting them provide nothing back to society? How about the welfare given to low income freeloaders that don't provide a return to society?

why do you believe, they return nothing to society?

and, if the rich can keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while on corporate, means tested subsidies, then why begrudge the poor, steak and lobster on their EBT cards.

There's nothing expected from a food stamp recipient when getting the money. No expectations, no return.

The businesses provide something in return. It could be jobs for those willing to work so they can pay taxes to fund the freeloaders you're willing to support not working.