Why are republicans so stupid when it comes to Food Stamps?

[Rustic]

Wealthy people don't rent seek (according to Wiki's description) They always invest their profits for more profits.

Want to make tax rates back to the 1950's? Go right ahead, and watch those rich people leave the country like so many have already. When they take the jobs with them, don't complain.

Back in the 1950's, there were few countries to take your business to. Travel was more dangerous than it is today because we didn't have satellites in the universe telling you weather conditions. If you did leave, you still had to conduct meetings with your heads of staff. But it didn't make sense to move your business because back in the 50's, people in other countries made the same as US workers; or close to it.

Today is different. Today, travel is much safer. You can take your company elsewhere, and track your other investments on your cell phone. Meetings? All done on the internet today. Labor? One-fifth of the cost of US labor.

As to your one-state theory: If the tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If the tax rate were 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars, because who would be stupid enough to invest or work?

WTF you mean wealthy people don't seek rents? What do you call political contributions? Jesus, the only money DeVos has ever invested was in seeking rents. And the Koch's, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars SEEKING RENTS. Jesus dude, wake up and smell the coffee.

Come on, do you hit the cap on Social Security taxes? If not, why do you have to pay Social Security taxes on every dime you make and the wealthy don't? And just how much long term capital gains do you claim? Does it make any sense at all that unearned income is taxed lower than earned income. Damn, unearned, earned---WTF, it should be obvious.

And that definition of rent seeking, it is income THAT IS NOT EARNED. Again, WTF. Funny, you are really pissed at the food stamp beneficiary spending money he doesn't earn, but the wealthy claiming millions and millions in UNEARNED income and paying a lower tax rate than your hard working ass, you just bend over and ask for another. It pisses me off and talk about being penny wise and pound foolish.

In my opinion, what a person makes is their business--not societies. How they spend that money is their business too since it is their money.

When somebody is spending my money, that is my concern. Why? Because I go out and work for it every day, that's why.

If you put high taxes on capital gains, less people will invest in capital gains. That's the whole idea. We need those rich people monies to support our stock market and other capital investments because in the end, it benefits us all.

Long term capital gains? Let me ask, do you own a house? Because if you do, you have a long term capital gain? Tax break? Unless they changed the laws, you don't have to pay taxes on the first home you buy once you sell it at a profit. It doesn't have to be the first home either. You can choose any house you like if you plan on moving around quite a bit.

And where is your retirement account? Mine is in the stock market like most people. I am hoping for a great return in a few years once I'm out of the workforce and retired. To get that return, I need to see the market grow. To make the market grow, I need people to get that lower tax so they will pump that money into the market.

Wealthy people don't rent seek (according to Wiki's description) They always invest their profits for more profits.

Want to make tax rates back to the 1950's? Go right ahead, and watch those rich people leave the country like so many have already. When they take the jobs with them, don't complain.

Back in the 1950's, there were few countries to take your business to. Travel was more dangerous than it is today because we didn't have satellites in the universe telling you weather conditions. If you did leave, you still had to conduct meetings with your heads of staff. But it didn't make sense to move your business because back in the 50's, people in other countries made the same as US workers; or close to it.

Today is different. Today, travel is much safer. You can take your company elsewhere, and track your other investments on your cell phone. Meetings? All done on the internet today. Labor? One-fifth of the cost of US labor.

As to your one-state theory: If the tax rate were 0%, the federal government would collect 0 dollars. If the tax rate were 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars, because who would be stupid enough to invest or work?

WTF you mean wealthy people don't seek rents? What do you call political contributions? Jesus, the only money DeVos has ever invested was in seeking rents. And the Koch's, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars SEEKING RENTS. Jesus dude, wake up and smell the coffee.

Come on, do you hit the cap on Social Security taxes? If not, why do you have to pay Social Security taxes on every dime you make and the wealthy don't? And just how much long term capital gains do you claim? Does it make any sense at all that unearned income is taxed lower than earned income. Damn, unearned, earned---WTF, it should be obvious.

And that definition of rent seeking, it is income THAT IS NOT EARNED. Again, WTF. Funny, you are really pissed at the food stamp beneficiary spending money he doesn't earn, but the wealthy claiming millions and millions in UNEARNED income and paying a lower tax rate than your hard working ass, you just bend over and ask for another. It pisses me off and talk about being penny wise and pound foolish.

In my opinion, what a person makes is their business--not societies. How they spend that money is their business too since it is their money.

When somebody is spending my money, that is my concern. Why? Because I go out and work for it every day, that's why.

If you put high taxes on capital gains, less people will invest in capital gains. That's the whole idea. We need those rich people monies to support our stock market and other capital investments because in the end, it benefits us all.

Long term capital gains? Let me ask, do you own a house? Because if you do, you have a long term capital gain? Tax break? Unless they changed the laws, you don't have to pay taxes on the first home you buy once you sell it at a profit. It doesn't have to be the first home either. You can choose any house you like if you plan on moving around quite a bit.

And where is your retirement account? Mine is in the stock market like most people. I am hoping for a great return in a few years once I'm out of the workforce and retired. To get that return, I need to see the market grow. To make the market grow, I need people to get that lower tax so they will pump that money into the market.

The food stamp beneficiary is no more spending your money than your barber. Come on, it is not a hard concept to understand. Once you turn over your tax money to the government, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE, just like when you turn your money over to your barber, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE.

But to the stock market. That is not investing. It is saving.

If you buy a lawnmower and use it to mow people's yards, you are investing. But, if you buy a piece of paper giving you ownership in someone's lawnmower, you are saving. You don't expect to go out there and mow yards. You expect to sell that piece of paper to someone else in the future. The dude doing the work, the one with the lawnmower, he never sees any of the money as that paper is transferred from individual to individual.

Dude,don't you drive a truck? You do not need people to pump money into the market. You need people to BUY THINGS and MAKE THINGS. When billions of dollars are tied up in the stock market, when the markets "capitalization" grows, it does not result in any production. In fact, it does the exact opposite, as more and more people put money into the market that could either be used to purchase goods, DEMAND, or produce goods, SUPPLY.

And funny thing about your retirement account. It is in the stock market. When you take it out, do you pay income taxes on it or capital gains? You pay income taxes on it. But the wealthy people, the people that put in non-qualified money, they pay capital gains. So even when you try to play their game, you still get screwed. Honestly, unless you have some huge employer match, placing money in a qualified retirement account is a sucker's bet that creates a tax bomb.

Now, I hope we can agree that since 1980 the economy has kind of sucked for working people like you. The vast majority of wealth creation has went to the upper one percent, most of that to the upper one tenth of a percent. In 1980 the total market capitalization, that is the total value of all stocks, was 40% of GDP. Today it is 140%. You need the market to grow like you need a hole in your head.

Really? I just got my bi-weekly statement today on my retirement plan, and I'm more than delighted.

Our tax dollars go to the federal government. We hire and elect representatives to spend that money. Our representatives promise to spend it a certain way. If what they say they will financially support goes along with your wishes on what the government spends money on, you elect that person to office. That's how you have some control over what your tax dollars are spent on.

So I elect representatives that have my concern about my money not going to people that didn't earn it nor deserve it.

You see the difference between my barber and the food stamp lady is if I don't like the way my barber cut my hair, I don't pay him any longer. I go to a new salon who will earn the money I give them. Also I'm not forced to pay my barber. I can cut my hair myself or maybe have a family member cut my hair. With taxes, you have no choice to spend your money because they forcefully take it from you. It's the same way with electing representatives. If I don't like the way they spend my money, I hire somebody who will spend my money the way I approve of.

I agree with what you are saying here about electing representatives. But your revulsion to the "low-life" at the grocery store is totally misplaced. He is not the one to blame, the government is the one to blame. It's that cognitive dissonance thing again. When Donald Trump proclaims he pays little to no taxes, you applaud it. When Warren Buffet says he pays only what he has to because that is his responsibility to his shareholders, you applaud it. So I have to ask, if you are a single mom with limited income eligible for food stamps--shouldn't you get them. It not that your responsibility to your kids? You are condemning these people for doing what they SHOULD DO.

And actually, there is something you can do about paying taxes. If you don't like paying them, don't work. It is really pretty simple. If you don't like being a taxpayer, then become one of those low-lives. Collect those rich food stamp benefits. Live it up.

Someone has to pay for these things, most likely people that cannot afford them. Because they are forced to pay for shit they will never use and nor benefit from… Socialists are the most retarded of people

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What is stupid is ignoring the FACTS presented within those cartoons. Either dispute the facts, accept the facts, or STFU.

why not provide what you as a typical stupid liberal think is a significant fact from one of your school boy cartoons??

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree with what you are saying here about electing representatives. But your revulsion to the "low-life" at the grocery store is totally misplaced. He is not the one to blame, the government is the one to blame. It's that cognitive dissonance thing again. When Donald Trump proclaims he pays little to no taxes, you applaud it. When Warren Buffet says he pays only what he has to because that is his responsibility to his shareholders, you applaud it. So I have to ask, if you are a single mom with limited income eligible for food stamps--shouldn't you get them. It not that your responsibility to your kids? You are condemning these people for doing what they SHOULD DO.

And actually, there is something you can do about paying taxes. If you don't like paying them, don't work. It is really pretty simple. If you don't like being a taxpayer, then become one of those low-lives. Collect those rich food stamp benefits. Live it up.

For once we agree on something: government IS to blame. But the people are the ones who elected the government.

The only way I would steal somebody else's money to live on is if I didn't have a choice in the matter. Government is constantly making it harder and harder for me to continue working, and if they keep on pushing, it may come to that. While not a very religious man, I do have a strong belief in God, and all those lowlifes who electively live on other people's money may have to repay that in the end. I don't want to be one of those people. God puts us all here for something, and I doubt he created lives to sit home and live off of other people's money they didn't make or deserve.

I don't care what Trump pays in taxes. Whatever he pays, he pays more than every member here on USMB, and I'm sure more than everybody combined on the street you live on. The fact is the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay close to 70% of all income taxes collected by the federal government. Who am I to complain about that?

Yes, most people who live on food stamps are lowlifes. They come to my grocery store all the time. They are usually women, usually with three kids or more, usually drive a late model vehicle, usually buy their food with the card, and then whip out cash for all their other goodies not allowed on the SNAP's card.

 

[Timmy]

How bout some sensible fixes ? With the bet cards , its harder to commit fraud .

Don't you mean ebt cards? I believe bet cards are for on-line betting.

In my opinion, the majority of food stamps recipients are, at least partially, gaming the system.

I don't think majority ! Many people get a rather low amount . $40-50 bucks . I forget what the average amount is .

There's a lot of elderly fix income types . And people on disability .

No. One of my tenants is on SS disability, and he doesn't get anything from food stamps. My father retired about 23 years ago, my mother about 20 years ago, and neither of them ever needed (or wanted) food stamps.

Sounds like Ssdi and not ssi . And are you sure he doesn't get stamps?

Why is it that people get all mad over a poor-ish guy getting some stamps but don't look twice at million dollar farms getting subsidies from the same bill?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How bout some sensible fixes ? With the bet cards , its harder to commit fraud .

Don't you mean ebt cards? I believe bet cards are for on-line betting.

In my opinion, the majority of food stamps recipients are, at least partially, gaming the system.

I don't think majority ! Many people get a rather low amount . $40-50 bucks . I forget what the average amount is .

There's a lot of elderly fix income types . And people on disability .

No. One of my tenants is on SS disability, and he doesn't get anything from food stamps. My father retired about 23 years ago, my mother about 20 years ago, and neither of them ever needed (or wanted) food stamps.

Sounds like Ssdi and not ssi . And are you sure he doesn't get stamps?

Why is it that people get all mad over a poor-ish guy getting some stamps but don't look twice at million dollar farms getting subsidies from the same bill?

I don't like the subsidies either. But government subsidies help keep the cost of products down that we buy at the store, so at least we get something back for our money.

Riddle me this: why is it I wake up every morning, go to work, and use the money I earn to buy my own food and somebody else doesn't? Before you start typing those ideas in your head, I will call out anything that involves the lack of personal responsibility. Having no or little personal responsibility is no excuse.

 

[Timmy]

How bout some sensible fixes ? With the bet cards , its harder to commit fraud .

Don't you mean ebt cards? I believe bet cards are for on-line betting.

In my opinion, the majority of food stamps recipients are, at least partially, gaming the system.

I don't think majority ! Many people get a rather low amount . $40-50 bucks . I forget what the average amount is .

There's a lot of elderly fix income types . And people on disability .

No. One of my tenants is on SS disability, and he doesn't get anything from food stamps. My father retired about 23 years ago, my mother about 20 years ago, and neither of them ever needed (or wanted) food stamps.

Sounds like Ssdi and not ssi . And are you sure he doesn't get stamps?

Why is it that people get all mad over a poor-ish guy getting some stamps but don't look twice at million dollar farms getting subsidies from the same bill?

I don't like the subsidies either. But government subsidies help keep the cost of products down that we buy at the store, so at least we get something back for our money.

Riddle me this: why is it I wake up every morning, go to work, and use the money I earn to buy my own food and somebody else doesn't? Before you start typing those ideas in your head, I will call out anything that involves the lack of personal responsibility. Having no or little personal responsibility is no excuse.

Dude . In my work I run into a lot of these folks. And there are no shortage of losers and people who made poor choices . Problem is there's usually some little kid involved . And you hope for the future .

Stamps help keep prices down too. It's Just another version of subsidies. Food industry benefits on both ends .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Don't you mean ebt cards? I believe bet cards are for on-line betting.

In my opinion, the majority of food stamps recipients are, at least partially, gaming the system.

I don't think majority ! Many people get a rather low amount . $40-50 bucks . I forget what the average amount is .

There's a lot of elderly fix income types . And people on disability .

No. One of my tenants is on SS disability, and he doesn't get anything from food stamps. My father retired about 23 years ago, my mother about 20 years ago, and neither of them ever needed (or wanted) food stamps.

Sounds like Ssdi and not ssi . And are you sure he doesn't get stamps?

Why is it that people get all mad over a poor-ish guy getting some stamps but don't look twice at million dollar farms getting subsidies from the same bill?

I don't like the subsidies either. But government subsidies help keep the cost of products down that we buy at the store, so at least we get something back for our money.

Riddle me this: why is it I wake up every morning, go to work, and use the money I earn to buy my own food and somebody else doesn't? Before you start typing those ideas in your head, I will call out anything that involves the lack of personal responsibility. Having no or little personal responsibility is no excuse.

Dude . In my work I run into a lot of these folks. And there are no shortage of losers and people who made poor choices . Problem is there's usually some little kid involved . And you hope for the future .

Stamps help keep prices down too. It's Just another version of subsidies. Food industry benefits on both ends .

Food stamps do not keep prices down. Don't listen to those left-wing lies that are put out by lying Democrats to keep people dependent on the federal government.

 

[Winston]

I agree with what you are saying here about electing representatives. But your revulsion to the "low-life" at the grocery store is totally misplaced. He is not the one to blame, the government is the one to blame. It's that cognitive dissonance thing again. When Donald Trump proclaims he pays little to no taxes, you applaud it. When Warren Buffet says he pays only what he has to because that is his responsibility to his shareholders, you applaud it. So I have to ask, if you are a single mom with limited income eligible for food stamps--shouldn't you get them. It not that your responsibility to your kids? You are condemning these people for doing what they SHOULD DO.

And actually, there is something you can do about paying taxes. If you don't like paying them, don't work. It is really pretty simple. If you don't like being a taxpayer, then become one of those low-lives. Collect those rich food stamp benefits. Live it up.

For once we agree on something: government IS to blame. But the people are the ones who elected the government.

The only way I would steal somebody else's money to live on is if I didn't have a choice in the matter. Government is constantly making it harder and harder for me to continue working, and if they keep on pushing, it may come to that. While not a very religious man, I do have a strong belief in God, and all those lowlifes who electively live on other people's money may have to repay that in the end. I don't want to be one of those people. God puts us all here for something, and I doubt he created lives to sit home and live off of other people's money they didn't make or deserve.

I don't care what Trump pays in taxes. Whatever he pays, he pays more than every member here on USMB, and I'm sure more than everybody combined on the street you live on. The fact is the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay close to 70% of all income taxes collected by the federal government. Who am I to complain about that?

Yes, most people who live on food stamps are lowlifes. They come to my grocery store all the time. They are usually women, usually with three kids or more, usually drive a late model vehicle, usually buy their food with the card, and then whip out cash for all their other goodies not allowed on the SNAP's card.

Actually, I am not convinced Trump has paid more taxes than me. And nobody lives on my street, it's a mile long private road and I am deep in the woods.

But, I do not doubt that most people you see at the grocery store using the EBT card are females with kids. And maybe she is a lowlife, although I think you will find they are no different than you. Maybe they don't have a choice in the matter. Regardless of rather she is a lowlife, those kids, who are eating that food, don't have a choice in the matter. And it is those kids that this is all about. It is those kids that are the future of this nation. It is those kids that are going to be saddled with the responsibility of funding your retirement, rather it is funding your Social Security or buying your securities.

And Timmy is right. Why is it you bitch about the single mother using her EBT card and yet don't bitch about the multi-millionaires collecting crop subsidies, which I actually know a little about. We pulled a couple hundred acres out of a "landbank" about fifteen years ago. Before that, we collecting thousands yearly simply by doing nothing. When Dad took it over he felt strongly enough about it that he put that land into production. It ended up costing us money. That is pretty screwed up. But it was the RIGHT thing to do.

Here is the thing. At my grandfather's funeral years ago Dad pulled me to the side. He said, "Look at these people, they are the salt of the earth. Everything you have, and everything you will ever get, derives from THEM, don't you ever forget it". Your success, your wealth---it came from somewhere. I know you work hard. I respect what you do. But without those salt of the earth people buying those groceries, however they pay for them, you would not have anything.

 

[Rustic]

I agree with what you are saying here about electing representatives. But your revulsion to the "low-life" at the grocery store is totally misplaced. He is not the one to blame, the government is the one to blame. It's that cognitive dissonance thing again. When Donald Trump proclaims he pays little to no taxes, you applaud it. When Warren Buffet says he pays only what he has to because that is his responsibility to his shareholders, you applaud it. So I have to ask, if you are a single mom with limited income eligible for food stamps--shouldn't you get them. It not that your responsibility to your kids? You are condemning these people for doing what they SHOULD DO.

And actually, there is something you can do about paying taxes. If you don't like paying them, don't work. It is really pretty simple. If you don't like being a taxpayer, then become one of those low-lives. Collect those rich food stamp benefits. Live it up.

For once we agree on something: government IS to blame. But the people are the ones who elected the government.

The only way I would steal somebody else's money to live on is if I didn't have a choice in the matter. Government is constantly making it harder and harder for me to continue working, and if they keep on pushing, it may come to that. While not a very religious man, I do have a strong belief in God, and all those lowlifes who electively live on other people's money may have to repay that in the end. I don't want to be one of those people. God puts us all here for something, and I doubt he created lives to sit home and live off of other people's money they didn't make or deserve.

I don't care what Trump pays in taxes. Whatever he pays, he pays more than every member here on USMB, and I'm sure more than everybody combined on the street you live on. The fact is the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay close to 70% of all income taxes collected by the federal government. Who am I to complain about that?

Yes, most people who live on food stamps are lowlifes. They come to my grocery store all the time. They are usually women, usually with three kids or more, usually drive a late model vehicle, usually buy their food with the card, and then whip out cash for all their other goodies not allowed on the SNAP's card.

Actually, I am not convinced Trump has paid more taxes than me. And nobody lives on my street, it's a mile long private road and I am deep in the woods.

But, I do not doubt that most people you see at the grocery store using the EBT card are females with kids. And maybe she is a lowlife, although I think you will find they are no different than you. Maybe they don't have a choice in the matter. Regardless of rather she is a lowlife, those kids, who are eating that food, don't have a choice in the matter. And it is those kids that this is all about. It is those kids that are the future of this nation. It is those kids that are going to be saddled with the responsibility of funding your retirement, rather it is funding your Social Security or buying your securities.

And Timmy is right. Why is it you bitch about the single mother using her EBT card and yet don't bitch about the multi-millionaires collecting crop subsidies, which I actually know a little about. We pulled a couple hundred acres out of a "landbank" about fifteen years ago. Before that, we collecting thousands yearly simply by doing nothing. When Dad took it over he felt strongly enough about it that he put that land into production. It ended up costing us money. That is pretty screwed up. But it was the RIGHT thing to do.

Here is the thing. At my grandfather's funeral years ago Dad pulled me to the side. He said, "Look at these people, they are the salt of the earth. Everything you have, and everything you will ever get, derives from THEM, don't you ever forget it". Your success, your wealth---it came from somewhere. I know you work hard. I respect what you do. But without those salt of the earth people buying those groceries, however they pay for them, you would not have anything.

The federal government has no claim on perceived taxes… especially when they abuse everything they touch anyway.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, I am not convinced Trump has paid more taxes than me. And nobody lives on my street, it's a mile long private road and I am deep in the woods.

But, I do not doubt that most people you see at the grocery store using the EBT card are females with kids. And maybe she is a lowlife, although I think you will find they are no different than you. Maybe they don't have a choice in the matter. Regardless of rather she is a lowlife, those kids, who are eating that food, don't have a choice in the matter. And it is those kids that this is all about. It is those kids that are the future of this nation. It is those kids that are going to be saddled with the responsibility of funding your retirement, rather it is funding your Social Security or buying your securities.

I'm getting so sick of "the children" excuse I'm to the point I don't care about them anymore. They (like their mom) will probably grow up to be a lowlife too, and then my children will end up supporting them. You want to really do something for the kids? Tell your representative you support a requirement of having people who apply for government handouts to be fixed first. No more being on welfare and having kids. That's how you help future generations of children.

If a parent is unable to take care of their children, then they should be removed and put up for adoption. That will stop them from having kids for the explicit purpose of getting more government goodies.

You say you doubt what I see is true, but by your own admission, live out in the woods? Well then that explains a lot right there. Come live in the city for a couple of years and maybe your opinion will change, because I see this kind of thing all the time.

Here is the thing. At my grandfather's funeral years ago Dad pulled me to the side. He said, "Look at these people, they are the salt of the earth. Everything you have, and everything you will ever get, derives from THEM, don't you ever forget it". Your success, your wealth---it came from somewhere. I know you work hard. I respect what you do. But without those salt of the earth people buying those groceries, however they pay for them, you would not have anything.

Goes to show you Dad's can be wrong too. People who live off of other people's money are not the salt of the earth, they are a drag on society.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree with what you are saying here about electing representatives. But your revulsion to the "low-life" at the grocery store is totally misplaced. He is not the one to blame, the government is the one to blame. It's that cognitive dissonance thing again. When Donald Trump proclaims he pays little to no taxes, you applaud it. When Warren Buffet says he pays only what he has to because that is his responsibility to his shareholders, you applaud it. So I have to ask, if you are a single mom with limited income eligible for food stamps--shouldn't you get them. It not that your responsibility to your kids? You are condemning these people for doing what they SHOULD DO.

And actually, there is something you can do about paying taxes. If you don't like paying them, don't work. It is really pretty simple. If you don't like being a taxpayer, then become one of those low-lives. Collect those rich food stamp benefits. Live it up.

For once we agree on something: government IS to blame. But the people are the ones who elected the government.

The only way I would steal somebody else's money to live on is if I didn't have a choice in the matter. Government is constantly making it harder and harder for me to continue working, and if they keep on pushing, it may come to that. While not a very religious man, I do have a strong belief in God, and all those lowlifes who electively live on other people's money may have to repay that in the end. I don't want to be one of those people. God puts us all here for something, and I doubt he created lives to sit home and live off of other people's money they didn't make or deserve.

I don't care what Trump pays in taxes. Whatever he pays, he pays more than every member here on USMB, and I'm sure more than everybody combined on the street you live on. The fact is the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay close to 70% of all income taxes collected by the federal government. Who am I to complain about that?

Yes, most people who live on food stamps are lowlifes. They come to my grocery store all the time. They are usually women, usually with three kids or more, usually drive a late model vehicle, usually buy their food with the card, and then whip out cash for all their other goodies not allowed on the SNAP's card.

Actually, I am not convinced Trump has paid more taxes than me. And nobody lives on my street, it's a mile long private road and I am deep in the woods.

But, I do not doubt that most people you see at the grocery store using the EBT card are females with kids. And maybe she is a lowlife, although I think you will find they are no different than you. Maybe they don't have a choice in the matter. Regardless of rather she is a lowlife, those kids, who are eating that food, don't have a choice in the matter. And it is those kids that this is all about. It is those kids that are the future of this nation. It is those kids that are going to be saddled with the responsibility of funding your retirement, rather it is funding your Social Security or buying your securities.

And Timmy is right. Why is it you bitch about the single mother using her EBT card and yet don't bitch about the multi-millionaires collecting crop subsidies, which I actually know a little about. We pulled a couple hundred acres out of a "landbank" about fifteen years ago. Before that, we collecting thousands yearly simply by doing nothing. When Dad took it over he felt strongly enough about it that he put that land into production. It ended up costing us money. That is pretty screwed up. But it was the RIGHT thing to do.

Here is the thing. At my grandfather's funeral years ago Dad pulled me to the side. He said, "Look at these people, they are the salt of the earth. Everything you have, and everything you will ever get, derives from THEM, don't you ever forget it". Your success, your wealth---it came from somewhere. I know you work hard. I respect what you do. But without those salt of the earth people buying those groceries, however they pay for them, you would not have anything.

The federal government has no claim on perceived taxes… especially when they abuse everything they touch anyway.

Why should anybody take the right wing seriously about the law (or economics)?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[Winston]

Actually, I am not convinced Trump has paid more taxes than me. And nobody lives on my street, it's a mile long private road and I am deep in the woods.

But, I do not doubt that most people you see at the grocery store using the EBT card are females with kids. And maybe she is a lowlife, although I think you will find they are no different than you. Maybe they don't have a choice in the matter. Regardless of rather she is a lowlife, those kids, who are eating that food, don't have a choice in the matter. And it is those kids that this is all about. It is those kids that are the future of this nation. It is those kids that are going to be saddled with the responsibility of funding your retirement, rather it is funding your Social Security or buying your securities.

I'm getting so sick of "the children" excuse I'm to the point I don't care about them anymore. They (like their mom) will probably grow up to be a lowlife too, and then my children will end up supporting them. You want to really do something for the kids? Tell your representative you support a requirement of having people who apply for government handouts to be fixed first. No more being on welfare and having kids. That's how you help future generations of children.

If a parent is unable to take care of their children, then they should be removed and put up for adoption. That will stop them from having kids for the explicit purpose of getting more government goodies.

You say you doubt what I see is true, but by your own admission, live out in the woods? Well then that explains a lot right there. Come live in the city for a couple of years and maybe your opinion will change, because I see this kind of thing all the time.

Here is the thing. At my grandfather's funeral years ago Dad pulled me to the side. He said, "Look at these people, they are the salt of the earth. Everything you have, and everything you will ever get, derives from THEM, don't you ever forget it". Your success, your wealth---it came from somewhere. I know you work hard. I respect what you do. But without those salt of the earth people buying those groceries, however they pay for them, you would not have anything.

Goes to show you Dad's can be wrong too. People who live off of other people's money are not the salt of the earth, they are a drag on society.

You could not be more wrong. That kid, by about the time he is twelve he can pick up on your "lowlife" viewpoint. How do you think that makes him feel? You have already condemned him to a life of failure. I don't know how much you know about "life", but it is true, you can create your own reality.

Dude, the sterilization you are proposing has a name. It is called EUGENICS. Now you believe the government should have the ability to decide who can procreate and who can't. How can you align that with the viewpoint that the government screws up everything it touches. Total cognitive dissonance. Makes no damn sense. If the government can decide who can procreate and who can't, who can enter the country and who can't, then the government gets to pick and choose it's citizens. It is a recipe for disaster.

I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP. I want them well fed, well educated, and with access to adequate health care because I know all those things are investments in THEIR FUTURE that will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings and greater tax receipts. One's success should not be based on their luck in the womb lottery. It should be dependent upon their hard work and dedication. The place of the government is to make sure those born to "lowlifes" have the same opportunities as those born into wealth.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, I am not convinced Trump has paid more taxes than me. And nobody lives on my street, it's a mile long private road and I am deep in the woods.

But, I do not doubt that most people you see at the grocery store using the EBT card are females with kids. And maybe she is a lowlife, although I think you will find they are no different than you. Maybe they don't have a choice in the matter. Regardless of rather she is a lowlife, those kids, who are eating that food, don't have a choice in the matter. And it is those kids that this is all about. It is those kids that are the future of this nation. It is those kids that are going to be saddled with the responsibility of funding your retirement, rather it is funding your Social Security or buying your securities.

I'm getting so sick of "the children" excuse I'm to the point I don't care about them anymore. They (like their mom) will probably grow up to be a lowlife too, and then my children will end up supporting them. You want to really do something for the kids? Tell your representative you support a requirement of having people who apply for government handouts to be fixed first. No more being on welfare and having kids. That's how you help future generations of children.

If a parent is unable to take care of their children, then they should be removed and put up for adoption. That will stop them from having kids for the explicit purpose of getting more government goodies.

You say you doubt what I see is true, but by your own admission, live out in the woods? Well then that explains a lot right there. Come live in the city for a couple of years and maybe your opinion will change, because I see this kind of thing all the time.

Here is the thing. At my grandfather's funeral years ago Dad pulled me to the side. He said, "Look at these people, they are the salt of the earth. Everything you have, and everything you will ever get, derives from THEM, don't you ever forget it". Your success, your wealth---it came from somewhere. I know you work hard. I respect what you do. But without those salt of the earth people buying those groceries, however they pay for them, you would not have anything.

Goes to show you Dad's can be wrong too. People who live off of other people's money are not the salt of the earth, they are a drag on society.

You could not be more wrong. That kid, by about the time he is twelve he can pick up on your "lowlife" viewpoint. How do you think that makes him feel? You have already condemned him to a life of failure. I don't know how much you know about "life", but it is true, you can create your own reality.

Dude, the sterilization you are proposing has a name. It is called EUGENICS. Now you believe the government should have the ability to decide who can procreate and who can't. How can you align that with the viewpoint that the government screws up everything it touches. Total cognitive dissonance. Makes no damn sense. If the government can decide who can procreate and who can't, who can enter the country and who can't, then the government gets to pick and choose it's citizens. It is a recipe for disaster.

I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP. I want them well fed, well educated, and with access to adequate health care because I know all those things are investments in THEIR FUTURE that will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings and greater tax receipts. One's success should not be based on their luck in the womb lottery. It should be dependent upon their hard work and dedication. The place of the government is to make sure those born to "lowlifes" have the same opportunities as those born into wealth.

With such a belief, we will always have lowlifes because we reward the procreation of them.

In most cases, a wealthy person will end up with wealthy children. An upper class family will usually end up with upper-class children. Middle-class people usually end up with middle-class children. There is nothing exceptional about the poor. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

In essence, what we are doing is paying poor people to produce more poor people. How is that any winning strategy? Wouldn't it make more sense to pay the middle-class or the wealthy to have more middle-class and wealthy children?

Eugenics? I never said government should tell people who can have kids and who shouldn't, but if you are going to live off of my money, I say we should have those requirements. I'm not asking of the poor anymore than we ask of the working. After all, when working people have enough children they can afford, what do they do? They make sure they can't have any more. I know plenty of working people that wished they could afford more kids, but they couldn't. Yet with lowlifes, they can have as many as they desire. How is that fair? After all, if you don't want to be fixed, then don't apply for government handouts. It's an option you know.

 

[Winston]

Actually, I am not convinced Trump has paid more taxes than me. And nobody lives on my street, it's a mile long private road and I am deep in the woods.

But, I do not doubt that most people you see at the grocery store using the EBT card are females with kids. And maybe she is a lowlife, although I think you will find they are no different than you. Maybe they don't have a choice in the matter. Regardless of rather she is a lowlife, those kids, who are eating that food, don't have a choice in the matter. And it is those kids that this is all about. It is those kids that are the future of this nation. It is those kids that are going to be saddled with the responsibility of funding your retirement, rather it is funding your Social Security or buying your securities.

I'm getting so sick of "the children" excuse I'm to the point I don't care about them anymore. They (like their mom) will probably grow up to be a lowlife too, and then my children will end up supporting them. You want to really do something for the kids? Tell your representative you support a requirement of having people who apply for government handouts to be fixed first. No more being on welfare and having kids. That's how you help future generations of children.

If a parent is unable to take care of their children, then they should be removed and put up for adoption. That will stop them from having kids for the explicit purpose of getting more government goodies.

You say you doubt what I see is true, but by your own admission, live out in the woods? Well then that explains a lot right there. Come live in the city for a couple of years and maybe your opinion will change, because I see this kind of thing all the time.

Here is the thing. At my grandfather's funeral years ago Dad pulled me to the side. He said, "Look at these people, they are the salt of the earth. Everything you have, and everything you will ever get, derives from THEM, don't you ever forget it". Your success, your wealth---it came from somewhere. I know you work hard. I respect what you do. But without those salt of the earth people buying those groceries, however they pay for them, you would not have anything.

Goes to show you Dad's can be wrong too. People who live off of other people's money are not the salt of the earth, they are a drag on society.

You could not be more wrong. That kid, by about the time he is twelve he can pick up on your "lowlife" viewpoint. How do you think that makes him feel? You have already condemned him to a life of failure. I don't know how much you know about "life", but it is true, you can create your own reality.

Dude, the sterilization you are proposing has a name. It is called EUGENICS. Now you believe the government should have the ability to decide who can procreate and who can't. How can you align that with the viewpoint that the government screws up everything it touches. Total cognitive dissonance. Makes no damn sense. If the government can decide who can procreate and who can't, who can enter the country and who can't, then the government gets to pick and choose it's citizens. It is a recipe for disaster.

I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP. I want them well fed, well educated, and with access to adequate health care because I know all those things are investments in THEIR FUTURE that will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings and greater tax receipts. One's success should not be based on their luck in the womb lottery. It should be dependent upon their hard work and dedication. The place of the government is to make sure those born to "lowlifes" have the same opportunities as those born into wealth.

With such a belief, we will always have lowlifes because we reward the procreation of them.

In most cases, a wealthy person will end up with wealthy children. An upper class family will usually end up with upper-class children. Middle-class people usually end up with middle-class children. There is nothing exceptional about the poor. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

In essence, what we are doing is paying poor people to produce more poor people. How is that any winning strategy? Wouldn't it make more sense to pay the middle-class or the wealthy to have more middle-class and wealthy children?

Eugenics? I never said government should tell people who can have kids and who shouldn't, but if you are going to live off of my money, I say we should have those requirements. I'm not asking of the poor anymore than we ask of the working. After all, when working people have enough children they can afford, what do they do? They make sure they can't have any more. I know plenty of working people that wished they could afford more kids, but they couldn't. Yet with lowlifes, they can have as many as they desire. How is that fair? After all, if you don't want to be fixed, then don't apply for government handouts. It's an option you know.

Look, when a wealthy person usually ends up with wealthy children and a poor person usually ends up with poor children, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.

My mom and dad were the classic across the railroad track marriage. Dad grew up dirt poor. Mom grew up fabulously wealthy. Dad and his siblings are all highly successful individuals. Mom never struck a lick in her life and her siblings were worthless. Now Dad and I control all that is left of what was once a huge estate that covered half the county.

Part of the problem. Children today get the benefit of HALF the percentage of federal outlays as they did when I was a kid. The damn parasitic boomer generation gets TWICE the benefit from federal outlays that their parents got. They have been sucking and sucking and sucking until damn near little is left and here you are, bitching and moaning about a itty bitty bit of food stamp spending by "lowlife" Moms. Honestly, it pisses me off.

 

[Dragonlady]

1) The cost of food stamps is a small fraction of the overall welfare budget

2) 2/3 of those on food stamps are kids

3) Few people even qualify for food stamps because it is reserved for the poorest of the poor. It's a program way behind on the rate of inflation as well.

4) Some Veterans are on food stamps.

5) Any adult on food stamps has a job

Republicans in congress are either complete assholes or are willfully ignorant.

But hey i get it: it gives republicans hard ons to say "i don't need a handout! I provide! I'm tough as nails! Derp, derp, derp!" They then pretend complete falsehoods or stereotypes about the program because it makes them feel more manly i guess.

Why can't facts ever permeate the republican bubble?

I am all for helping people in need. What I object to is to allow Food Stamp users to buy all that junk food that supermarkets make all their money on. They need to be required to buy healthy food. Maybe if they start eating healthy their health care costs might just go down. Bet most are on Medicaid.

Ya know...tell your mom to send you to the store for groceries.

I spend about $225 a month on groceries, but I'm a pensioner who has the time and skills to do all of my own cooking. I don't eat anything I didn't make from scratch, including baking my own cookies, muffins and dessert breads, and I make family sized batches and freeze the leftovers so I cook for about a week and then make pancakes, soups, mac n cheese, and bake the rest of the month, always freezing leftovers.

Today I had blueberry pancakes for breakfast, mac n cheese with sausages for lunch, and shepherd's pie for dinner, all from my freezer.

Working parents (54% of SNAP recipients are working parents) don't have the time or the energy to pore over fliers to see where the best deals are. Or to go to three different grocery stores to lower their costs. They don't then spend hours cooking each day. I certainly didn't do any of these things when I was a working wife. I went to one store and bought what they had on sale, but then I was also spending about $150 a week for a family of 3.

On the amount I have to spend, I don't eat steak or shrimp. Shrimp are on sale this week but at $4.88 for 12 ounces, I can't afford it. Ground beef is $6.00 a pound right now, so I'm not eating much beef at all, not when I can make pulled pork for $1.88 a pound.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, I am not convinced Trump has paid more taxes than me. And nobody lives on my street, it's a mile long private road and I am deep in the woods.

But, I do not doubt that most people you see at the grocery store using the EBT card are females with kids. And maybe she is a lowlife, although I think you will find they are no different than you. Maybe they don't have a choice in the matter. Regardless of rather she is a lowlife, those kids, who are eating that food, don't have a choice in the matter. And it is those kids that this is all about. It is those kids that are the future of this nation. It is those kids that are going to be saddled with the responsibility of funding your retirement, rather it is funding your Social Security or buying your securities.

I'm getting so sick of "the children" excuse I'm to the point I don't care about them anymore. They (like their mom) will probably grow up to be a lowlife too, and then my children will end up supporting them. You want to really do something for the kids? Tell your representative you support a requirement of having people who apply for government handouts to be fixed first. No more being on welfare and having kids. That's how you help future generations of children.

If a parent is unable to take care of their children, then they should be removed and put up for adoption. That will stop them from having kids for the explicit purpose of getting more government goodies.

You say you doubt what I see is true, but by your own admission, live out in the woods? Well then that explains a lot right there. Come live in the city for a couple of years and maybe your opinion will change, because I see this kind of thing all the time.

Here is the thing. At my grandfather's funeral years ago Dad pulled me to the side. He said, "Look at these people, they are the salt of the earth. Everything you have, and everything you will ever get, derives from THEM, don't you ever forget it". Your success, your wealth---it came from somewhere. I know you work hard. I respect what you do. But without those salt of the earth people buying those groceries, however they pay for them, you would not have anything.

Goes to show you Dad's can be wrong too. People who live off of other people's money are not the salt of the earth, they are a drag on society.

You could not be more wrong. That kid, by about the time he is twelve he can pick up on your "lowlife" viewpoint. How do you think that makes him feel? You have already condemned him to a life of failure. I don't know how much you know about "life", but it is true, you can create your own reality.

Dude, the sterilization you are proposing has a name. It is called EUGENICS. Now you believe the government should have the ability to decide who can procreate and who can't. How can you align that with the viewpoint that the government screws up everything it touches. Total cognitive dissonance. Makes no damn sense. If the government can decide who can procreate and who can't, who can enter the country and who can't, then the government gets to pick and choose it's citizens. It is a recipe for disaster.

I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP. I want them well fed, well educated, and with access to adequate health care because I know all those things are investments in THEIR FUTURE that will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings and greater tax receipts. One's success should not be based on their luck in the womb lottery. It should be dependent upon their hard work and dedication. The place of the government is to make sure those born to "lowlifes" have the same opportunities as those born into wealth.

With such a belief, we will always have lowlifes because we reward the procreation of them.

In most cases, a wealthy person will end up with wealthy children. An upper class family will usually end up with upper-class children. Middle-class people usually end up with middle-class children. There is nothing exceptional about the poor. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

In essence, what we are doing is paying poor people to produce more poor people. How is that any winning strategy? Wouldn't it make more sense to pay the middle-class or the wealthy to have more middle-class and wealthy children?

Eugenics? I never said government should tell people who can have kids and who shouldn't, but if you are going to live off of my money, I say we should have those requirements. I'm not asking of the poor anymore than we ask of the working. After all, when working people have enough children they can afford, what do they do? They make sure they can't have any more. I know plenty of working people that wished they could afford more kids, but they couldn't. Yet with lowlifes, they can have as many as they desire. How is that fair? After all, if you don't want to be fixed, then don't apply for government handouts. It's an option you know.

Look, when a wealthy person usually ends up with wealthy children and a poor person usually ends up with poor children, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.

My mom and dad were the classic across the railroad track marriage. Dad grew up dirt poor. Mom grew up fabulously wealthy. Dad and his siblings are all highly successful individuals. Mom never struck a lick in her life and her siblings were worthless. Now Dad and I control all that is left of what was once a huge estate that covered half the county.

Part of the problem. Children today get the benefit of HALF the percentage of federal outlays as they did when I was a kid. The damn parasitic boomer generation gets TWICE the benefit from federal outlays that their parents got. They have been sucking and sucking and sucking until damn near little is left and here you are, bitching and moaning about a itty bitty bit of food stamp spending by "lowlife" Moms. Honestly, it pisses me off.

If you are going to get pissed off about politics and polices, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing them.

We always had welfare programs, but years ago, they paid so little nobody could actually survive on them alone. Today, the amount of benefits collected by so-called poor families exceeds that of an average income earner.

It's like Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!"

So we are so concerned about the poor children that we load them up with SNAP's cards, school lunches, and allow them to buy crap food at the grocery store. The liberal solution by Moochelle Obama? Only sell them food they won't eat at school.

Yes, when wealthy people produce wealthy children and poor people produce poor children, there is a problem: we are letting the poor procreate on taxpayer money.

In 1980, I got my first apartment. I had a fascination for birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.

Spring came around and I got to meet my elderly neighbor. He looked up at my back porch and said "You know Ray, what you are doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing, but you may be bringing them more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter time is helpful because there is no food to be found. But leaving that thing up year round, the birds will soon become too dependent on it and forget how to obtain their own food. If you move or become disinterested in feeding the birds any longer, they will parish."

I always remembered the old mans words; not because of the birds, but later in life, I realized that's what government does with people: keep the feeder up year round.

 

[Winston]

Actually, I am not convinced Trump has paid more taxes than me. And nobody lives on my street, it's a mile long private road and I am deep in the woods.

But, I do not doubt that most people you see at the grocery store using the EBT card are females with kids. And maybe she is a lowlife, although I think you will find they are no different than you. Maybe they don't have a choice in the matter. Regardless of rather she is a lowlife, those kids, who are eating that food, don't have a choice in the matter. And it is those kids that this is all about. It is those kids that are the future of this nation. It is those kids that are going to be saddled with the responsibility of funding your retirement, rather it is funding your Social Security or buying your securities.

I'm getting so sick of "the children" excuse I'm to the point I don't care about them anymore. They (like their mom) will probably grow up to be a lowlife too, and then my children will end up supporting them. You want to really do something for the kids? Tell your representative you support a requirement of having people who apply for government handouts to be fixed first. No more being on welfare and having kids. That's how you help future generations of children.

If a parent is unable to take care of their children, then they should be removed and put up for adoption. That will stop them from having kids for the explicit purpose of getting more government goodies.

You say you doubt what I see is true, but by your own admission, live out in the woods? Well then that explains a lot right there. Come live in the city for a couple of years and maybe your opinion will change, because I see this kind of thing all the time.

Here is the thing. At my grandfather's funeral years ago Dad pulled me to the side. He said, "Look at these people, they are the salt of the earth. Everything you have, and everything you will ever get, derives from THEM, don't you ever forget it". Your success, your wealth---it came from somewhere. I know you work hard. I respect what you do. But without those salt of the earth people buying those groceries, however they pay for them, you would not have anything.

Goes to show you Dad's can be wrong too. People who live off of other people's money are not the salt of the earth, they are a drag on society.

You could not be more wrong. That kid, by about the time he is twelve he can pick up on your "lowlife" viewpoint. How do you think that makes him feel? You have already condemned him to a life of failure. I don't know how much you know about "life", but it is true, you can create your own reality.

Dude, the sterilization you are proposing has a name. It is called EUGENICS. Now you believe the government should have the ability to decide who can procreate and who can't. How can you align that with the viewpoint that the government screws up everything it touches. Total cognitive dissonance. Makes no damn sense. If the government can decide who can procreate and who can't, who can enter the country and who can't, then the government gets to pick and choose it's citizens. It is a recipe for disaster.

I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP. I want them well fed, well educated, and with access to adequate health care because I know all those things are investments in THEIR FUTURE that will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings and greater tax receipts. One's success should not be based on their luck in the womb lottery. It should be dependent upon their hard work and dedication. The place of the government is to make sure those born to "lowlifes" have the same opportunities as those born into wealth.

With such a belief, we will always have lowlifes because we reward the procreation of them.

In most cases, a wealthy person will end up with wealthy children. An upper class family will usually end up with upper-class children. Middle-class people usually end up with middle-class children. There is nothing exceptional about the poor. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

In essence, what we are doing is paying poor people to produce more poor people. How is that any winning strategy? Wouldn't it make more sense to pay the middle-class or the wealthy to have more middle-class and wealthy children?

Eugenics? I never said government should tell people who can have kids and who shouldn't, but if you are going to live off of my money, I say we should have those requirements. I'm not asking of the poor anymore than we ask of the working. After all, when working people have enough children they can afford, what do they do? They make sure they can't have any more. I know plenty of working people that wished they could afford more kids, but they couldn't. Yet with lowlifes, they can have as many as they desire. How is that fair? After all, if you don't want to be fixed, then don't apply for government handouts. It's an option you know.

Look, when a wealthy person usually ends up with wealthy children and a poor person usually ends up with poor children, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.

My mom and dad were the classic across the railroad track marriage. Dad grew up dirt poor. Mom grew up fabulously wealthy. Dad and his siblings are all highly successful individuals. Mom never struck a lick in her life and her siblings were worthless. Now Dad and I control all that is left of what was once a huge estate that covered half the county.

Part of the problem. Children today get the benefit of HALF the percentage of federal outlays as they did when I was a kid. The damn parasitic boomer generation gets TWICE the benefit from federal outlays that their parents got. They have been sucking and sucking and sucking until damn near little is left and here you are, bitching and moaning about a itty bitty bit of food stamp spending by "lowlife" Moms. Honestly, it pisses me off.

If you are going to get pissed off about politics and polices, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing them.

We always had welfare programs, but years ago, they paid so little nobody could actually survive on them alone. Today, the amount of benefits collected by so-called poor families exceeds that of an average income earner.

It's like Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!"

So we are so concerned about the poor children that we load them up with SNAP's cards, school lunches, and allow them to buy crap food at the grocery store. The liberal solution by Moochelle Obama? Only sell them food they won't eat at school.

Yes, when wealthy people produce wealthy children and poor people produce poor children, there is a problem: we are letting the poor procreate on taxpayer money.

In 1980, I got my first apartment. I had a fascination for birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.

Spring came around and I got to meet my elderly neighbor. He looked up at my back porch and said "You know Ray, what you are doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing, but you may be bringing them more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter time is helpful because there is no food to be found. But leaving that thing up year round, the birds will soon become too dependent on it and forget how to obtain their own food. If you move or become disinterested in feeding the birds any longer, they will parish."

I always remembered the old mans words; not because of the birds, but later in life, I realized that's what government does with people: keep the feeder up year round.

Food stamps, free lunch, all that stuff is only provided in the winter time. When the summer comes, and their incomes increase, they don't get the benefits.

I mean here is a thought. If you want those people off the public dole DON'T PUNISH THEM when they make more money. That single "low-life" mom with three kids, if she takes a second job, she already probably has one, she pays something like EIGHTY CENTS for ever additional dollar she earns. She earns an extra dollar she loses food stamps, she losing the EITC, and she pays social security tax on that additional income.

The CBO calculates that her effective marginal tax rate would range from a modest 17% to a jaw-dropping 95% (see chart 1). If the prospect of keeping only five cents of each extra dollar earned does not discourage work, it is hard to imagine what might.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...early-well-it-should-taxing-hard-up-americans

 

[Kosh]

1) The cost of food stamps is a small fraction of the overall welfare budget

2) 2/3 of those on food stamps are kids

3) Few people even qualify for food stamps because it is reserved for the poorest of the poor. It's a program way behind on the rate of inflation as well.

4) Some Veterans are on food stamps.

5) Any adult on food stamps has a job

Republicans in congress are either complete assholes or are willfully ignorant.

But hey i get it: it gives republicans hard ons to say "i don't need a handout! I provide! I'm tough as nails! Derp, derp, derp!" They then pretend complete falsehoods or stereotypes about the program because it makes them feel more manly i guess.

Why can't facts ever permeate the republican bubble?

Another uninformed far left drone spewing far left religious dogma..

 

[Markle]

I don't think majority ! Many people get a rather low amount . $40-50 bucks . I forget what the average amount is .

There's a lot of elderly fix income types . And people on disability .

Average household receives $287.00 per month in food stamps (SNAP).

By fraud, I include scamming the system. A couple with children are not married. The parent working part time or earning the least claims food stamps by not disclosing the significant other is earning $30,000 a year.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm getting so sick of "the children" excuse I'm to the point I don't care about them anymore. They (like their mom) will probably grow up to be a lowlife too, and then my children will end up supporting them. You want to really do something for the kids? Tell your representative you support a requirement of having people who apply for government handouts to be fixed first. No more being on welfare and having kids. That's how you help future generations of children.

If a parent is unable to take care of their children, then they should be removed and put up for adoption. That will stop them from having kids for the explicit purpose of getting more government goodies.

You say you doubt what I see is true, but by your own admission, live out in the woods? Well then that explains a lot right there. Come live in the city for a couple of years and maybe your opinion will change, because I see this kind of thing all the time.



Goes to show you Dad's can be wrong too. People who live off of other people's money are not the salt of the earth, they are a drag on society.

You could not be more wrong. That kid, by about the time he is twelve he can pick up on your "lowlife" viewpoint. How do you think that makes him feel? You have already condemned him to a life of failure. I don't know how much you know about "life", but it is true, you can create your own reality.

Dude, the sterilization you are proposing has a name. It is called EUGENICS. Now you believe the government should have the ability to decide who can procreate and who can't. How can you align that with the viewpoint that the government screws up everything it touches. Total cognitive dissonance. Makes no damn sense. If the government can decide who can procreate and who can't, who can enter the country and who can't, then the government gets to pick and choose it's citizens. It is a recipe for disaster.

I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP. I want them well fed, well educated, and with access to adequate health care because I know all those things are investments in THEIR FUTURE that will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings and greater tax receipts. One's success should not be based on their luck in the womb lottery. It should be dependent upon their hard work and dedication. The place of the government is to make sure those born to "lowlifes" have the same opportunities as those born into wealth.

With such a belief, we will always have lowlifes because we reward the procreation of them.

In most cases, a wealthy person will end up with wealthy children. An upper class family will usually end up with upper-class children. Middle-class people usually end up with middle-class children. There is nothing exceptional about the poor. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

In essence, what we are doing is paying poor people to produce more poor people. How is that any winning strategy? Wouldn't it make more sense to pay the middle-class or the wealthy to have more middle-class and wealthy children?

Eugenics? I never said government should tell people who can have kids and who shouldn't, but if you are going to live off of my money, I say we should have those requirements. I'm not asking of the poor anymore than we ask of the working. After all, when working people have enough children they can afford, what do they do? They make sure they can't have any more. I know plenty of working people that wished they could afford more kids, but they couldn't. Yet with lowlifes, they can have as many as they desire. How is that fair? After all, if you don't want to be fixed, then don't apply for government handouts. It's an option you know.

Look, when a wealthy person usually ends up with wealthy children and a poor person usually ends up with poor children, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.

My mom and dad were the classic across the railroad track marriage. Dad grew up dirt poor. Mom grew up fabulously wealthy. Dad and his siblings are all highly successful individuals. Mom never struck a lick in her life and her siblings were worthless. Now Dad and I control all that is left of what was once a huge estate that covered half the county.

Part of the problem. Children today get the benefit of HALF the percentage of federal outlays as they did when I was a kid. The damn parasitic boomer generation gets TWICE the benefit from federal outlays that their parents got. They have been sucking and sucking and sucking until damn near little is left and here you are, bitching and moaning about a itty bitty bit of food stamp spending by "lowlife" Moms. Honestly, it pisses me off.

If you are going to get pissed off about politics and polices, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing them.

We always had welfare programs, but years ago, they paid so little nobody could actually survive on them alone. Today, the amount of benefits collected by so-called poor families exceeds that of an average income earner.

It's like Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!"

So we are so concerned about the poor children that we load them up with SNAP's cards, school lunches, and allow them to buy crap food at the grocery store. The liberal solution by Moochelle Obama? Only sell them food they won't eat at school.

Yes, when wealthy people produce wealthy children and poor people produce poor children, there is a problem: we are letting the poor procreate on taxpayer money.

In 1980, I got my first apartment. I had a fascination for birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my new back porch.

Spring came around and I got to meet my elderly neighbor. He looked up at my back porch and said "You know Ray, what you are doing for the birds with that feeder is a nice thing, but you may be bringing them more harm than good. You see, feeding the birds in the winter time is helpful because there is no food to be found. But leaving that thing up year round, the birds will soon become too dependent on it and forget how to obtain their own food. If you move or become disinterested in feeding the birds any longer, they will parish."

I always remembered the old mans words; not because of the birds, but later in life, I realized that's what government does with people: keep the feeder up year round.

Food stamps, free lunch, all that stuff is only provided in the winter time. When the summer comes, and their incomes increase, they don't get the benefits.

I mean here is a thought. If you want those people off the public dole DON'T PUNISH THEM when they make more money. That single "low-life" mom with three kids, if she takes a second job, she already probably has one, she pays something like EIGHTY CENTS for ever additional dollar she earns. She earns an extra dollar she loses food stamps, she losing the EITC, and she pays social security tax on that additional income.

The CBO calculates that her effective marginal tax rate would range from a modest 17% to a jaw-dropping 95% (see chart 1). If the prospect of keeping only five cents of each extra dollar earned does not discourage work, it is hard to imagine what might.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...early-well-it-should-taxing-hard-up-americans

Which is what I've been saying all along: our government rewards people for being failures.

When you have a social system that penalizes success and rewards failure, how do you expect more successful people?

True story:

About a year and a half ago, one of my tenants became increasingly late with rent. So I invited them to my apartment to discuss the problem.

This was an unmarried couple with two children. Their 12 year old smoked, but couldn't work to support her habit, so they provided her with tobacco products. They had a large dog and three cats to boot. The father of the children believed that it was not worth his time to work more than 40 hours. She stayed home all day to "supposedly" home school their two children.

Since he didn't want to work more hours, and she stayed home all day, I suggested she get a part-time job on the weekends when he was home to watch the kids. They could catch up on their rent and perhaps save for another used car since theirs was a rust bucket that didn't start half of the time.

They didn't even entertain my idea. Why? Because she got $250.00 a month for food stamps for the kids, and any income she created would work against that stipend.

Long story short, I had to evict them through the courts. Now he has a record of eviction which will be on his record for years to come. Why? Because she wanted to keep her food stamps.