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

[Ray From Cleveland]

Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States could end the need for a (duplicative) food stamp program.

Fourteen dollars an hour would complement nicely, a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Sounds good. Are you willing to pay for all those unemployed (at will) workers with a higher tax?

I would;

but, it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

You would not. If they increased your taxes so people could just stay home instead of working, you'd be the first to complain.

But as long as it doesn't cost you anything, you're fine with somebody else paying the bill just like every other liberal out there.

it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

How do you lower the tax burden by paying people to stay home instead of working? That doesn't even make an ounce of sense.

What if we all stayed home on unemployment? What do you think would happen to this country then?

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States could end the need for a (duplicative) food stamp program.

Fourteen dollars an hour would complement nicely, a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Sounds good. Are you willing to pay for all those unemployed (at will) workers with a higher tax?

I would;

but, it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

You would not. If they increased your taxes so people could just stay home instead of working, you'd be the first to complain.

But as long as it doesn't cost you anything, you're fine with somebody else paying the bill just like every other liberal out there.

it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

How do you lower the tax burden by paying people to stay home instead of working? That doesn't even make an ounce of sense.

What if we all stayed home on unemployment? What do you think would happen to this country then?

Nobody takes the right seriously about economics.

Capitalism doesn't stop working, just for your special pleading.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sounds good. Are you willing to pay for all those unemployed (at will) workers with a higher tax?

I would;

but, it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

You would not. If they increased your taxes so people could just stay home instead of working, you'd be the first to complain.

But as long as it doesn't cost you anything, you're fine with somebody else paying the bill just like every other liberal out there.

it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

How do you lower the tax burden by paying people to stay home instead of working? That doesn't even make an ounce of sense.

What if we all stayed home on unemployment? What do you think would happen to this country then?

Nobody takes the right seriously about economics.

Capitalism doesn't stop working, just for your special pleading.

And you didn't address either question. Good idea with deflection.

 

[danielpalos]

I would;

but, it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

You would not. If they increased your taxes so people could just stay home instead of working, you'd be the first to complain.

But as long as it doesn't cost you anything, you're fine with somebody else paying the bill just like every other liberal out there.

it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

How do you lower the tax burden by paying people to stay home instead of working? That doesn't even make an ounce of sense.

What if we all stayed home on unemployment? What do you think would happen to this country then?

Nobody takes the right seriously about economics.

Capitalism doesn't stop working, just for your special pleading.

And you didn't address either question. Good idea with deflection.

it is irrelevant special pleading that can Only happen, if capitalism stops working.

 

[Conservative65]

the rich got to keep their multimillion dollar bonus.

What contribution does the EBT user provide to society?

Body heat to the room?

simply circulating capital engenders a positive effect on our economy.

Shouldn't those that earned it circulate it? Let those that haven't earned it do so it they want to circulate it.

Capitalism does not require a work ethic; only a capital ethic.

To make that capital, one has to work.

Socialism requires a begging ethic.

 

[Conservative65]

Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States could end the need for a (duplicative) food stamp program.

Fourteen dollars an hour would complement nicely, a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Sounds good. Are you willing to pay for all those unemployed (at will) workers with a higher tax?

I would;

but, it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

Why do you have to be told to help them is you claim to care so much for them?

equal protection of the law, is a Constitutional issue.

Doesn't apply to YOU being responsible for supporting YOU.

 

[Conservative65]

Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States could end the need for a (duplicative) food stamp program.

Fourteen dollars an hour would complement nicely, a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Sounds good. Are you willing to pay for all those unemployed (at will) workers with a higher tax?

I would;

but, it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

Why do you have to be told to help them is you claim to care so much for them?

equal protection of the law, is a Constitutional issue.

You already have it.

That asshole doesn't want equal protection and opportunity. He wants equal results despite providing less than equal effort.

 

[Conservative65]

Sounds good. Are you willing to pay for all those unemployed (at will) workers with a higher tax?

I would;

but, it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

Why do you have to be told to help them is you claim to care so much for them?

equal protection of the law, is a Constitutional issue.

You already have it.

only in right wing fantasy.

Since you provide less than equal effort, you have equal results to that low level effort. See how that works.

 

[danielpalos]

What contribution does the EBT user provide to society?

Body heat to the room?

simply circulating capital engenders a positive effect on our economy.

Shouldn't those that earned it circulate it? Let those that haven't earned it do so it they want to circulate it.

Capitalism does not require a work ethic; only a capital ethic.

To make that capital, one has to work.

Socialism requires a begging ethic.

subsidies?

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States could end the need for a (duplicative) food stamp program.

Fourteen dollars an hour would complement nicely, a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Sounds good. Are you willing to pay for all those unemployed (at will) workers with a higher tax?

I would;

but, it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

Why do you have to be told to help them is you claim to care so much for them?

equal protection of the law, is a Constitutional issue.

Doesn't apply to YOU being responsible for supporting YOU.

yes, it does apply in this case. you are simply, clueless and Causeless, and have no standing, as a result.

 

[danielpalos]

Sounds good. Are you willing to pay for all those unemployed (at will) workers with a higher tax?

I would;

but, it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

Why do you have to be told to help them is you claim to care so much for them?

equal protection of the law, is a Constitutional issue.

You already have it.

That asshole doesn't want equal protection and opportunity. He wants equal results despite providing less than equal effort.

equal protection of the law is in our social Contract. only infidels, protestants, and renegades have a problem with it.

 

[danielpalos]

I would;

but, it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

Why do you have to be told to help them is you claim to care so much for them?

equal protection of the law, is a Constitutional issue.

You already have it.

only in right wing fantasy.

Since you provide less than equal effort, you have equal results to that low level effort. See how that works.

only in right wing fantasy; not resorting to fallacy is simply, superior workmanship.

 

[ding]

subsidies?

yes, it does apply in this case. you are simply, clueless and Causeless, and have no standing, as a result.

equal protection of the law is in our social Contract. only infidels, protestants, and renegades have a problem with it.

only in right wing fantasy; not resorting to fallacy is simply, superior workmanship.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

 

[danielpalos]

subsidies?

yes, it does apply in this case. you are simply, clueless and Causeless, and have no standing, as a result.

equal protection of the law is in our social Contract. only infidels, protestants, and renegades have a problem with it.

only in right wing fantasy; not resorting to fallacy is simply, superior workmanship.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

too lazy to come up with a valid argument?

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States could end the need for a (duplicative) food stamp program.

Fourteen dollars an hour would complement nicely, a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Sounds good. Are you willing to pay for all those unemployed (at will) workers with a higher tax?

I would;

but, it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

Why do you have to be told to help them is you claim to care so much for them?

equal protection of the law, is a Constitutional issue.

Doesn't apply to YOU being responsible for supporting YOU.

the law is the law; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; only illegals, do that.

 

[ding]

subsidies?

yes, it does apply in this case. you are simply, clueless and Causeless, and have no standing, as a result.

equal protection of the law is in our social Contract. only infidels, protestants, and renegades have a problem with it.

only in right wing fantasy; not resorting to fallacy is simply, superior workmanship.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

too lazy to come up with a valid argument?

That's pretty funny coming from the guy who has made no argument. I'm pretty happy with my argument.

"Socialism intentionally denies examination.There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis. Socialism dismisses its defeats and ignores its incongruities. Socialism is a reaction: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. Socialism diametrically opposes the concepts of man held by religion. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity." Solzhenitsyn

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it.

What was your argument again?

 

[Conservative65]

Body heat to the room?

simply circulating capital engenders a positive effect on our economy.

Shouldn't those that earned it circulate it? Let those that haven't earned it do so it they want to circulate it.

Capitalism does not require a work ethic; only a capital ethic.

To make that capital, one has to work.

Socialism requires a begging ethic.

subsidies?

Subsidies people received to be able to buy health insurance under Obamacare are socialism and the begging mindset. The money they receive is as a result of nothing they did and the result of it produces nothing.

 

[Conservative65]

Sounds good. Are you willing to pay for all those unemployed (at will) workers with a higher tax?

I would;

but, it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

Why do you have to be told to help them is you claim to care so much for them?

equal protection of the law, is a Constitutional issue.

Doesn't apply to YOU being responsible for supporting YOU.

the law is the law; there is no appeal to ignorance of the law; only illegals, do that.

The law has to be applied properly. Your application of that isn't. Care to try again? You'll fail again as usual.

 

[Conservative65]

Sounds good. Are you willing to pay for all those unemployed (at will) workers with a higher tax?

I would;

but, it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

Why do you have to be told to help them is you claim to care so much for them?

equal protection of the law, is a Constitutional issue.

Doesn't apply to YOU being responsible for supporting YOU.

yes, it does apply in this case. you are simply, clueless and Causeless, and have no standing, as a result.

Only to a piece of shit socialist like you. That makes you incorrect as usual.

 

[Conservative65]

I would;

but, it will be less expensive than our current regime. we could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden at the same time.

Why do you have to be told to help them is you claim to care so much for them?

equal protection of the law, is a Constitutional issue.

You already have it.

That asshole doesn't want equal protection and opportunity. He wants equal results despite providing less than equal effort.

equal protection of the law is in our social Contract. only infidels, protestants, and renegades have a problem with it.

Equal results aren't. Only idiots like you believe those two are the same.