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

[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.

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

If you contribute nothing to society and don't put into the pot from which you draw, you have neither capital worth or social worth. You're a drain on society both financially and socially.

 

[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.

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.

a subsidy is a subsidy; no special pleading from the special, right wing fantasy crowd.

 

[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.

If you contribute nothing to society and don't put into the pot from which you draw, you have neither capital worth or social worth. You're a drain on society both financially and socially.

I guess, the semi-religious right wing would have considered Jesus the Christ, (capitally) worthless.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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.

So how did it help america when obozo gave trillions of dollars to the giant hedge funds that you call banks.?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If you contribute nothing to society and don't put into the pot from which you draw, you have neither capital worth or social worth. .

And that describes the big banks. They produce nothing. They are just market speculators. So why was it ok to give them trillions in corporate welfare.?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Because it's not their money---it's ours?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[danielpalos]

why no food restrictions, for them?

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.

Because it's not their money---it's ours?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

the rich got to keep their multimillion dollar bonus.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

A sting operation? Any CEO that is worth anything has a very long business record that can easily checked. Companies don't need the highest paid ones to fork over money. That's besides the fact you are making this up as if it were the truth.

A CEO is no different than a star pitcher, actor or recording artist. They get paid the money they do because of past performances. If a great CEO can turn your company around and create an additional 20 mil a year in profit, of course he's worth paying 10 mil a year to work for you.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Conservative65]

If you contribute nothing to society and don't put into the pot from which you draw, you have neither capital worth or social worth. .

And that describes the big banks. They produce nothing. They are just market speculators. So why was it ok to give them trillions in corporate welfare.?

No such thing as corporate welfare.

Next time you need a loan, go to some poor freeloader living under a bridge.

 

[Conservative65]

why no food restrictions, for them?

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.

Because it's not their money---it's ours?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What Daniel the Dumbass doesn't get is if those doing the paying want to do what he doesn't like with their money, that's his problem but none of his concern.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Because it's not their money---it's ours?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

the rich got to keep their multimillion dollar bonus.

What contribution does the EBT user provide to society?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Because it's not their money---it's ours?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

the rich got to keep their multimillion dollar bonus.

What contribution does the EBT user provide to society?

keeps capitalism working through that social bailout.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Because it's not their money---it's ours?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What Daniel the Dumbass doesn't get is if those doing the paying want to do what he doesn't like with their money, that's his problem but none of his concern.

it is not your money; it is the Peoples' money once taxed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Because it's not their money---it's ours?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

the rich got to keep their multimillion dollar bonus.

Yes, that's because they had a signed contract with the company. That's the way contracts work.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you contribute nothing to society and don't put into the pot from which you draw, you have neither capital worth or social worth. .

And that describes the big banks. They produce nothing. They are just market speculators. So why was it ok to give them trillions in corporate welfare.?

It's not okay to give them anything. But I do believe they paid it back anyhow.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Because it's not their money---it's ours?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

the rich got to keep their multimillion dollar bonus.

Yes, that's because they had a signed contract with the company. That's the way contracts work.

on means tested, corporate welfare? why don't the poor get to keep their bonuses on welfare for individuals?

 

[danielpalos]

If you contribute nothing to society and don't put into the pot from which you draw, you have neither capital worth or social worth. .

And that describes the big banks. They produce nothing. They are just market speculators. So why was it ok to give them trillions in corporate welfare.?

It's not okay to give them anything. But I do believe they paid it back anyhow.

so what; simply spending money creates a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

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

Speak for yourself. I think we do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you contribute nothing to society and don't put into the pot from which you draw, you have neither capital worth or social worth. .

And that describes the big banks. They produce nothing. They are just market speculators. So why was it ok to give them trillions in corporate welfare.?

It's not okay to give them anything. But I do believe they paid it back anyhow.

so what; simply spending money creates a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

No, not always. That's why DumBama's Pork Bill was a failure.

In order for spending to work, it has to be widespread, not one or two particular sectors. Our economy was pretty much stuck in the mud until the price of fuel came down. Then everybody had more money in their pockets to spend.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

on means tested, corporate welfare? why don't the poor get to keep their bonuses on welfare for individuals?

The poor don't get bonuses. Their bonus is us paying for their needs.

Like a failed company, our country is now 20 trillion dollars in the hole, and we are still feeding, housing, providing medical care to these people.