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

[danielpalos]

A red state does not mean everybody in that state is a Republican. If that were the case, there would be no need for local and state elections. States don't get welfare--people in states get welfare.

We in Ohio are a swing state, but currently pretty red. We have several large cities where Democrats dwell. That's where a lot of our population lives, and that's where you'll most likely find the welfare types.

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base
Republicans want to shrink government. But their core voters benefit from assistance, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the most.

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base



The Food Stamp Capital of the U.S. is WHITE and REPUBLICAN

US Food Stamp Capital Is 99% WHITE And 95% REPUBLICAN!!!


...It’s Owsley County, Kentucky. A place that is said to be 99.22% white and 95% Republican!

US Food Stamp Capital Is 99% WHITE And 95% REPUBLICAN!!! | Urban Intellectuals


According to the 2010 census reports, Owsley County has the second highest level of child poverty of any county in the United States. In terms of income per household, the county is the poorest in the nation

Between 1980 and 2014, the rate of death from cancer in the county increased by 45.6 percent, the largest such increase of any county in the United States.
Owsley County, Kentucky - Wikipedia

The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients

Conservative & Liberal are the same.

And there are Republicans on food stamps contrary to what your buddy said.

According to the Pew report, Republicans have used food stamps at half the rate as Democrats.

Again, your buddy aid no Republicans were on food stamps.

welfare queen red States, allegedly have "low tax rates".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't pay income taxes when you make that little. She would probably lose (after deductions) about $350.00 at the most, and would probably get a lot of that back in her income tax refund. After all less than 10 K a year with two dependents is poverty, so she may get it all back.

Either way, it could have prevented them from losing their home, him having the embarrassment of getting his wages garnished, paying my legal fees and time off of work, and having an eviction on his record.

Would I work for that kind of money? Probably not, but then again I wouldn't have had a family in the first place, feed a large dog and three cats, and would have given up cigarettes.

She might not pay the income taxes but more than likely she would. Her standard deduction and exemptions would have been exhausted covering the husband's income. But she most certainly would pay the Social Security taxes, that's the bigger chunk. She most certainly would have lost some of the EITC.

And I wasn't asking if you would work for eight dollars an hour. I am asking if you would work when you only get twenty to thirty cents on the dollar of whatever wage you were earning.

No, she would get it all back because she is not married to the father of her children. They live together, but government doesn't count that as a two income family. Government doesn't even check into those things.

Then you messed up. You should of told them to get married, then your rent would have gotten paid, and then some. Unless the guy made more than thirty grand, and it sounds like he didn't, the EITC on his income more than offsets the food stamps. Plus, he could have gotten the EITC pre-loaded on his paycheck instead of waiting for a tax refund.

No, no, no. You make out better if you're not married than married. By government standards, she was a single woman with two children and no income. They never considered the father living in the same dwelling. It doesn't matter to the government. Married, she would have not been able to get food stamps--or get very little. As a single woman with two children, she got plenty.

I have tenants who are married. She is a sickly woman and is always at the doctors or hospital. He works but doesn't make the big bucks. But they both work like hell--or within her ability to do so.

She applied for disability and was refused because she was married. Recently, she was finally accepted for partial disability. But at the time, we seriously discussed what she might get if they got a divorce and the government looked only at her income instead of their combined income. I added that if they got a divorce and I put the apartment in her name, HUD might kick in and pay their rent for both of them. See how it works now?

You are so wrong. The EITC is the EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT. The only way to get it is to WORK. The mother didn't work, The father did. But the father can't claim the children on the tax return while the mother is claiming she is single and head of household. For two children that EITC could amount to over six thousand dollars a year.

Your other tenant was not denied disability because she was married. Being married does not disqualify one from getting disability. It does prevent one from collecting SSI, Supplementary Security Income. And getting a divorce would not have helped, you cannot collect SSI if you have ever been married. And if you collect SSI and get married the government reduces your monthly amount by the amount of the spouse's monthly earnings.

But thanks for showing you are a hypocrite. Obviously, if a deadbeat not working lowlife is collecting government money, like say a HUD subsidy, you are more than happy to collect it. In fact, there is not one bit of difference between lying about being married to collect government benefits and lying about not being married to collect government benefits. In short, those government handouts are fine if some of the money ends up in your pocket, even if one has to lie to the government to get it.

Actually it was meant as a joke. I don't do Section 8. They require inspections, registrations, and then they place your apartment on their list whether it's rented or not, and then you have all kinds of lowlifes calling you all week. It''s not worth it.

I'm going by what my tenant told me. Their combined income played a part in her claim for disability. As for my former tenant, he paid child support to her through the courts and she did claim being the head of the household. I don't know what impact child support has on taxes, but doing it the way they did got them the most government benefits.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well I tell you what, when I see an economy where more businesses close up than start up, I sorta figure the current economic policies are not exactly favorable to economic growth. So, do you want to continue with the condescension cuz if so I'm outta here.

Then quit with the political bullshit. Obama created far more jobs than Bush. But he did nothing to discourage rent seeking. Rent seeking is when companies seek additional wealth without creating new wealth. In other words, by TAKING instead of MAKING. Citizens United pretty much threw the door wide open.

As the distribution of wealth becomes increasingly unequal, the returns to that wealth—like interest, dividends, and capital gains—will generate more inequality. In addition, the fact that those at higher wealth levels seem to receive higher returns to capital, when coupled with reductions in tax rates on capital income in recent decades, has increased the contribution of capital income to overall inequality. Further, if some firms earn monopoly profits, owners of those firms may benefit more than others.

How Rent-Seeking Is Driving Inequality

"reductions in tax rates on capital income". Did you get that. Obviously, the very first thing we can do is increase the tax rates on capital income to at least the level hard working blue collar Americans pay.

At no time in human history has higher taxes on capital income and redistribution to lower income people EVER resulted in economic growth. NEVER. I'll be back later to expand on that.

LMAOROG, Sure pal, sure

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers


HOW'D THE US ECONOMY DO 1945-1980 AGAIN CUPCAKE?

FactCheck.org says differently:

FactChecking Obama's Budget Speech - FactCheck.org

Sorry cupcake, IF you want to make a posit, or refute the REAL numbers do it, don't provide a link and leave it at that as if I'm supposed to understand right wing nutjobbery!



ONCE MORE CUPCAKE:

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

So for each of these elite income groups, the effective tax rates were at or near historical lows in 2004, though for certain groups, the effective rate was equal or slightly lower in 1990. Of course, this data is seven years old.
Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

Oh, so you don't want to read it yourself? Allow me to help:

It does show those making more than $250,000 and those earning more than $2 million paying a lower effective tax rate in 2008 than in 1960. The decline was much greater for those making more than $2 million. But both groups of high-income earners were paying just about the same rate in the late 1980s as they were in 2008, according to the White House graph. The rates increased during the 1990s and began to fall again during the early years of the last decade. Update, April 15: We originally said that the rates in the late ’80s were "similar or possibly lower" than they are today. The Office of Management and Budget later provided specific figures that show the tax rates in the ’80s were similar. The OMB figures show that those earning more than $2 million paid the same rate (25 percent) in 2008 as they did in 1988, 1989 and 1990, and those making more than $250,000 paid 25 percent — the same rate since 2003. The latter group had a rate of 26 percent in the late ’80s.

 

[danielpalos]

She might not pay the income taxes but more than likely she would. Her standard deduction and exemptions would have been exhausted covering the husband's income. But she most certainly would pay the Social Security taxes, that's the bigger chunk. She most certainly would have lost some of the EITC.

And I wasn't asking if you would work for eight dollars an hour. I am asking if you would work when you only get twenty to thirty cents on the dollar of whatever wage you were earning.

No, she would get it all back because she is not married to the father of her children. They live together, but government doesn't count that as a two income family. Government doesn't even check into those things.

Then you messed up. You should of told them to get married, then your rent would have gotten paid, and then some. Unless the guy made more than thirty grand, and it sounds like he didn't, the EITC on his income more than offsets the food stamps. Plus, he could have gotten the EITC pre-loaded on his paycheck instead of waiting for a tax refund.

No, no, no. You make out better if you're not married than married. By government standards, she was a single woman with two children and no income. They never considered the father living in the same dwelling. It doesn't matter to the government. Married, she would have not been able to get food stamps--or get very little. As a single woman with two children, she got plenty.

I have tenants who are married. She is a sickly woman and is always at the doctors or hospital. He works but doesn't make the big bucks. But they both work like hell--or within her ability to do so.

She applied for disability and was refused because she was married. Recently, she was finally accepted for partial disability. But at the time, we seriously discussed what she might get if they got a divorce and the government looked only at her income instead of their combined income. I added that if they got a divorce and I put the apartment in her name, HUD might kick in and pay their rent for both of them. See how it works now?

You are so wrong. The EITC is the EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT. The only way to get it is to WORK. The mother didn't work, The father did. But the father can't claim the children on the tax return while the mother is claiming she is single and head of household. For two children that EITC could amount to over six thousand dollars a year.

Your other tenant was not denied disability because she was married. Being married does not disqualify one from getting disability. It does prevent one from collecting SSI, Supplementary Security Income. And getting a divorce would not have helped, you cannot collect SSI if you have ever been married. And if you collect SSI and get married the government reduces your monthly amount by the amount of the spouse's monthly earnings.

But thanks for showing you are a hypocrite. Obviously, if a deadbeat not working lowlife is collecting government money, like say a HUD subsidy, you are more than happy to collect it. In fact, there is not one bit of difference between lying about being married to collect government benefits and lying about not being married to collect government benefits. In short, those government handouts are fine if some of the money ends up in your pocket, even if one has to lie to the government to get it.

Actually it was meant as a joke. I don't do Section 8. They require inspections, registrations, and then they place your apartment on their list whether it's rented or not, and then you have all kinds of lowlifes calling you all week. It''s not worth it.

I'm going by what my tenant told me. Their combined income played a part in her claim for disability. As for my former tenant, he paid child support to her through the courts and she did claim being the head of the household. I don't know what impact child support has on taxes, but doing it the way they did got them the most government benefits.

would this have been an issue, if those persons had unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Never saw a poor Republican?

If all Republicans work & don't get any government benefits, why do Red States lead the pack in welfare type programs?

A red state does not mean everybody in that state is a Republican. If that were the case, there would be no need for local and state elections. States don't get welfare--people in states get welfare.

We in Ohio are a swing state, but currently pretty red. We have several large cities where Democrats dwell. That's where a lot of our population lives, and that's where you'll most likely find the welfare types.

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base
Republicans want to shrink government. But their core voters benefit from assistance, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the most.

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base



The Food Stamp Capital of the U.S. is WHITE and REPUBLICAN

US Food Stamp Capital Is 99% WHITE And 95% REPUBLICAN!!!


...It’s Owsley County, Kentucky. A place that is said to be 99.22% white and 95% Republican!

US Food Stamp Capital Is 99% WHITE And 95% REPUBLICAN!!! | Urban Intellectuals


According to the 2010 census reports, Owsley County has the second highest level of child poverty of any county in the United States. In terms of income per household, the county is the poorest in the nation

Between 1980 and 2014, the rate of death from cancer in the county increased by 45.6 percent, the largest such increase of any county in the United States.
Owsley County, Kentucky - Wikipedia

The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients

"But when the political lens shifts from partisanship to ideology, the participation gap vanishes. Self-described political conservatives were no more likely than liberals or moderates to have received food stamps (17% for each group), according to the survey."

Still, Democrats have used the food stamp program twice as much as Republicans. That's a fact.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

.Wrong. Republicans obstructed job programs initiated by Obama.

The reality here is that conservatives have been a thorn in the side of progress ever since they took over in 1994. The almost took us to a depression during Bush, and Obama created jobs for more than 6. years straight . Things could have and would have been better had it not been for republicans deciding they would fight for power instead of for America. This has been our problem and now that we have Trump with a republican majority in the house ad senate, the problem will be magnified.

Yeah, DumBama wanted to have another failed program and waste another trillion dollars. What happened to shovel ready jobs? Ask the jobs expert:



His Pork Bill had nothing to do with getting America back to work, it had to do with union paybacks.

That bill that was 40% tax cuts to TRY to get a few GOPers on board?


Economists Agree: The Stimulus Worked


“The stimulus worked” is the overwhelming conclusion of a panel of elite economists surveyed as part of the University of Chicago’s IGM Economic Experts Panel. The survey asked whether the unemployment rate at the end of 2010 was lower than it would have been because of the U.S. government’s 2009 fiscal stimulus act. Out of the 37 panelists who responded, 36 agreed, an even better response than an identical 2012 survey.
Economists Agree: The Stimulus Worked | Moody's Analytics Economy.com

Here, try an unbiased source for a change:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...t-failures-from-president-obamas-stimulus-law

 

[danielpalos]

Never saw a poor Republican?

If all Republicans work & don't get any government benefits, why do Red States lead the pack in welfare type programs?

A red state does not mean everybody in that state is a Republican. If that were the case, there would be no need for local and state elections. States don't get welfare--people in states get welfare.

We in Ohio are a swing state, but currently pretty red. We have several large cities where Democrats dwell. That's where a lot of our population lives, and that's where you'll most likely find the welfare types.

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base
Republicans want to shrink government. But their core voters benefit from assistance, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the most.

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base



The Food Stamp Capital of the U.S. is WHITE and REPUBLICAN

US Food Stamp Capital Is 99% WHITE And 95% REPUBLICAN!!!


...It’s Owsley County, Kentucky. A place that is said to be 99.22% white and 95% Republican!

US Food Stamp Capital Is 99% WHITE And 95% REPUBLICAN!!! | Urban Intellectuals


According to the 2010 census reports, Owsley County has the second highest level of child poverty of any county in the United States. In terms of income per household, the county is the poorest in the nation

Between 1980 and 2014, the rate of death from cancer in the county increased by 45.6 percent, the largest such increase of any county in the United States.
Owsley County, Kentucky - Wikipedia

The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients

"But when the political lens shifts from partisanship to ideology, the participation gap vanishes. Self-described political conservatives were no more likely than liberals or moderates to have received food stamps (17% for each group), according to the survey."

Still, Democrats have used the food stamp program twice as much as Republicans. That's a fact.

Just typical, "right wing hate on the poor"?

Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to have received food stamps at some point in their lives—a participation gap that echoes the deep partisan divide in the U.S. House of Representatives, which on Thursday produced a farm bill that did not include funding for the food stamp program.

The right wing claims, "we have a foreign terrorism" problem.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ain't food stamps part of the farm bill? It's all a give away to the food industry .

As if it wouldn't survive without it? I can see farm aid to farms that are stricken by natural disasters and such but ALL subsidies are out of control.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

Why are democrats so blind when it comes to food stamps?

 

[danielpalos]

Ain't food stamps part of the farm bill? It's all a give away to the food industry .

As if it wouldn't survive without it? I can see farm aid to farms that are stricken by natural disasters and such but ALL subsidies are out of control.

get rid of the drug war; y'all, bunch of right wing, slackers.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Why are democrats so blind when it comes to food stamps?

we aren't. If the right wing, "hard money" crowd isn't complaining about that form of "funny money", why should the left.

 

[OKTexas]

Wait a minute, you're the one that posted all these great jobs numbers for your dear leader. Are you seriously saying the mulatto messiah only created shit welfare jobs?

.

Sorry cupcake, I'm just saying after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies, the US lost 600,000+ jobs AND lost another 4 million in 2009 before Obama policies kicked in. Obama saw 16 million private sector jobs starting March 2010, the same year "job killer" Obamacares was passed? Weird right cupcake??

Were those jobs "shit welfare" jobs? Record Corp profits, lowest tax burden since before the great GOP depression? Maybe time to get rid of GOP policies like trickle down, if the "job creators" aren't doing their part??

All the policies in place right now are your dear leaders, when does he take responsibility for not lowering the numbers on welfare and food stamps?

.

Weird you haven't seen those numbers going down cupcake? Perhaps relook?

MARCH 18, 2015

No Mystery Why SNAP Enrollment Remains High: It’s Still the Economy


GOP "WELFARE REFORM" CUPCAKE

The need is there and the share of eligible families receiving AFDC/TANF cash assistance declined, as you can see, 79% in 1996 to 32% in 2012. The budget proposals are targeted to serve these families, since less than one-third of eligible families are actually receiving cash assistance from TANF.
The President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget: Strengthening the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program

TANF



ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE??

Yeah, you got any raw numbers? Like there's 47 million on food stamps now, how many were on them last year and the year before? Stop with the percentage of population and adjust for inflation crap.

.

Under 42 million in 2016.

Source?

.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, that great maobama economy, all those people going to work, yet the welfare has remained constant. Explain how that works.

.

You mean the hole Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies dug US into? Weird right? Care to explain why we should allow those "job creators" to keep their sustained lowest EFFECTIVE tax rate since before the GOP's first great depression, and Cheeto and Comp want to gut their taxes even more? Maybe those "job creators" who are going to get HUGE tax breaks (Walmart's Walton family alone a $52 BILLION further tax reduction) via Cheeto's policies need to create well paying jobs that get people off of Gov't teet? Instead of US continuing to subsidize them?

So you're saying your dear leader didn't do such a great job after all, since the welfare rolls during his time reached record numbers and remained there the whole 8 years? And you want more of the same?

You meant the hole 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies PUT US IN and Cheeto wants to put it on steroids??

Wait a minute, you're the one that posted all these great jobs numbers for your dear leader. Are you seriously saying the mulatto messiah only created shit welfare jobs?

.

Racist fuck.

Really, toward which half? LMAO

.

 

[Rambunctious]

Republicans Gage compassion by how many people no longer need assistance not by how many people are receiving assistance. A growing economy a better health care program that will not hamper job growth will reduce unemployment and reduce the need for food stamps. The nation can not just keep borrowing money to pay able body people to not work, it's not good for them and we can't afford it. 20 trillion dollars of debt says we can't keep it up not me. Now we have a businessman in office creating real jobs and the welfare state is going nuts. Not surprised.

 

[OKTexas]

Wait a minute, you're the one that posted all these great jobs numbers for your dear leader. Are you seriously saying the mulatto messiah only created shit welfare jobs?

.

Sorry cupcake, I'm just saying after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies, the US lost 600,000+ jobs AND lost another 4 million in 2009 before Obama policies kicked in. Obama saw 16 million private sector jobs starting March 2010, the same year "job killer" Obamacares was passed? Weird right cupcake??

Were those jobs "shit welfare" jobs? Record Corp profits, lowest tax burden since before the great GOP depression? Maybe time to get rid of GOP policies like trickle down, if the "job creators" aren't doing their part??

All the policies in place right now are your dear leaders, when does he take responsibility for not lowering the numbers on welfare and food stamps?

.

Weird you haven't seen those numbers going down cupcake? Perhaps relook?

MARCH 18, 2015

No Mystery Why SNAP Enrollment Remains High: It’s Still the Economy


GOP "WELFARE REFORM" CUPCAKE

The need is there and the share of eligible families receiving AFDC/TANF cash assistance declined, as you can see, 79% in 1996 to 32% in 2012. The budget proposals are targeted to serve these families, since less than one-third of eligible families are actually receiving cash assistance from TANF.
The President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget: Strengthening the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program

TANF



ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE??

Yeah, you got any raw numbers? Like there's 47 million on food stamps now, how many were on them last year and the year before? Stop with the percentage of population and adjust for inflation crap.

.

So the answer is no? LMAO

.

 

[Winston]

Republicans Gage compassion by how many people no longer need assistance not by how many people are receiving assistance. A growing economy a better health care program that will not hamper job growth will reduce unemployment and reduce the need for food stamps. The nation can not just keep borrowing money to pay able body people to not work, it's not good for them and we can't afford it. 20 trillion dollars of debt says we can't keep it up not me. Now we have a businessman in office creating real jobs and the welfare state is going nuts. Not surprised.

Well I hate to break the news to you. He ain't doing so hot based on the just released report by his very own Department of Commerce. GDP growth fourth quarter last year was 2.1% annual rate. First quarter this year, 1.2% and that is revised upward from the initial report and a far cry from Trumps target of 4%.

The deceleration in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected a downturn in private inventory
investment and a deceleration in PCE that were partly offset by an upturn in exports and an acceleration in nonresidential fixed investment.

News Release: Gross Domestic Product

 

[danielpalos]

Republicans Gage compassion by how many people no longer need assistance not by how many people are receiving assistance. A growing economy a better health care program that will not hamper job growth will reduce unemployment and reduce the need for food stamps. The nation can not just keep borrowing money to pay able body people to not work, it's not good for them and we can't afford it. 20 trillion dollars of debt says we can't keep it up not me. Now we have a businessman in office creating real jobs and the welfare state is going nuts. Not surprised.

Just standard right wing "hate on the poor"?

Why not end the drug war?

 

[keepitreal]

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.

I'm trying to catch up as fast as I can...
there are so many posts I'm dying to reply to,
and didn't know where to begin...until ^

Now, it all makes perfect sense.
Obviously, you reside in the land of Oz!

So, tell me....
will the wizard be getting back to you anytime soon,
about that brain you're in desperate need of?

As much as I'm dying to properly respond,
it'll have to wait until later tonight

 

[Winston]

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.

I'm trying to catch up as fast as I can...
there are so many posts I'm dying to reply to,
and didn't know where to begin...until ^

Now, it all makes perfect sense.
Obviously, you reside in the land of Oz!

So, tell me....
will the wizard be getting back to you anytime soon,
about that brain you're in desperate need of?

As much as I'm dying to properly respond,
it'll have to wait until later tonight

Well, when you do "properly respond" make sure you tell me what is wrong with the statement of mine that you quoted. Do well fed children perform better in school? Do healthy children perform better in school? And do better educated children turn into more productive, higher taxpaying adults?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I'm trying to catch up as fast as I can...
there are so many posts I'm dying to reply to,
and didn't know where to begin...until ^

Now, it all makes perfect sense.
Obviously, you reside in the land of Oz!

So, tell me....
will the wizard be getting back to you anytime soon,
about that brain you're in desperate need of?

As much as I'm dying to properly respond,
it'll have to wait until later tonight

Well, when you do "properly respond" make sure you tell me what is wrong with the statement of mine that you quoted. Do well fed children perform better in school? Do healthy children perform better in school? And do better educated children turn into more productive, higher taxpaying adults?

I don't know that they do or don't. To my knowledge, no study has been done on that. But no matter if they do or don't, how is well fed, better educated and more productive taxpaying adults my responsibility?