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

[danielpalos]

It should be ruled, unconstitutional unless the government can Actually solve that problem instead of just, claim to have solved that problem.

you are talking about the "War on Drugs"? Yes?

when has the government ever claimed to have solved the problem?

there is no war on drugs clause. specific welfare for Individuals is a component part of provision for the general welfare.

A social safety net is "worthless" if it ends before the problem is solved. Only the rich can invest and make money, regardless.

 

[dcbl]

It should be ruled, unconstitutional unless the government can Actually solve that problem instead of just, claim to have solved that problem.

you are talking about the "War on Drugs"? Yes?

when has the government ever claimed to have solved the problem?

there is no war on drugs clause. specific welfare for Individuals is a component part of provision for the general welfare.

A social safety net is "worthless" if it ends before the problem is solved. Only the rich can invest and make money, regardless.

Okay, I understand your opinion about safety nets and the "rich"

But that is not what I asked

I asked when did anyone claim that the drug problem is solved?

 

[danielpalos]

It should be ruled, unconstitutional unless the government can Actually solve that problem instead of just, claim to have solved that problem.

you are talking about the "War on Drugs"? Yes?

when has the government ever claimed to have solved the problem?

there is no war on drugs clause. specific welfare for Individuals is a component part of provision for the general welfare.

A social safety net is "worthless" if it ends before the problem is solved. Only the rich can invest and make money, regardless.

Okay, I understand your opinion about safety nets and the "rich"

But that is not what I asked

I asked when did anyone claim that the drug problem is solved?

When did Anyone Ever Claim, capitalism's, not Labor's, natural rate of unemployment, was solved?

 

[dcbl]

It should be ruled, unconstitutional unless the government can Actually solve that problem instead of just, claim to have solved that problem.

you are talking about the "War on Drugs"? Yes?

when has the government ever claimed to have solved the problem?

there is no war on drugs clause. specific welfare for Individuals is a component part of provision for the general welfare.

A social safety net is "worthless" if it ends before the problem is solved. Only the rich can invest and make money, regardless.

Okay, I understand your opinion about safety nets and the "rich"

But that is not what I asked

I asked when did anyone claim that the drug problem is solved?

When did Anyone Ever Claim, capitalism's, not Labor's, natural rate of unemployment, was solved?

Nice deflection

Has nothing to do with the question I asked

You claimed (or rather, it looks like you are claiming) that "the government says the problem is solved"

I asked if you are referring to the war on drugs and also asked for you to show me where anyone, anywhere has claimed that the problem is solved

But even if you were referring to the issue of poverty, the same question applies - who has said the problem is solved?

You made the statement, so I am assuming you are prepared to offer an example or a link...

 

[danielpalos]

It should be ruled, unconstitutional unless the government can Actually solve that problem instead of just, claim to have solved that problem.

you are talking about the "War on Drugs"? Yes?

when has the government ever claimed to have solved the problem?

there is no war on drugs clause. specific welfare for Individuals is a component part of provision for the general welfare.

A social safety net is "worthless" if it ends before the problem is solved. Only the rich can invest and make money, regardless.

Okay, I understand your opinion about safety nets and the "rich"

But that is not what I asked

I asked when did anyone claim that the drug problem is solved?

When did Anyone Ever Claim, capitalism's, not Labor's, natural rate of unemployment, was solved?

Nice deflection

Has nothing to do with the question I asked

You claimed (or rather, it looks like you are claiming) that "the government says the problem is solved"

I asked if you are referring to the war on drugs and also asked for you to show me where anyone, anywhere has claimed that the problem is solved

But even if you were referring to the issue of poverty, the same question applies - who has said the problem is solved?

You made the statement, so I am assuming you are prepared to offer an example or a link...

You are implying we need to keep the drug war. I am implying, welfare benefits cannot end until Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment ends.

 

[dcbl]

you are talking about the "War on Drugs"? Yes?

when has the government ever claimed to have solved the problem?

there is no war on drugs clause. specific welfare for Individuals is a component part of provision for the general welfare.

A social safety net is "worthless" if it ends before the problem is solved. Only the rich can invest and make money, regardless.

Okay, I understand your opinion about safety nets and the "rich"

But that is not what I asked

I asked when did anyone claim that the drug problem is solved?

When did Anyone Ever Claim, capitalism's, not Labor's, natural rate of unemployment, was solved?

Nice deflection

Has nothing to do with the question I asked

You claimed (or rather, it looks like you are claiming) that "the government says the problem is solved"

I asked if you are referring to the war on drugs and also asked for you to show me where anyone, anywhere has claimed that the problem is solved

But even if you were referring to the issue of poverty, the same question applies - who has said the problem is solved?

You made the statement, so I am assuming you are prepared to offer an example or a link...

You are implying we need to keep the drug war. I am implying, welfare benefits cannot end until Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment ends.

No, I never implied that we need to keep the "war on drugs" - I have advocated against it for years, as I am confident you are aware

Seriously, I have said that the one thing I am frustrated with Sessions on is his attitude about this issue

As far as I know, no one in government (or anywhere else) has ever claimed that the drug problem or poverty issue is solved

You made a claim that I find to be confusing, so I am asking for clarification and proof

Pretty simple stuff Danny Boy...

 

[danielpalos]

there is no war on drugs clause. specific welfare for Individuals is a component part of provision for the general welfare.

A social safety net is "worthless" if it ends before the problem is solved. Only the rich can invest and make money, regardless.

Okay, I understand your opinion about safety nets and the "rich"

But that is not what I asked

I asked when did anyone claim that the drug problem is solved?

When did Anyone Ever Claim, capitalism's, not Labor's, natural rate of unemployment, was solved?

Nice deflection

Has nothing to do with the question I asked

You claimed (or rather, it looks like you are claiming) that "the government says the problem is solved"

I asked if you are referring to the war on drugs and also asked for you to show me where anyone, anywhere has claimed that the problem is solved

But even if you were referring to the issue of poverty, the same question applies - who has said the problem is solved?

You made the statement, so I am assuming you are prepared to offer an example or a link...

You are implying we need to keep the drug war. I am implying, welfare benefits cannot end until Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment ends.

No, I never implied that we need to keep the "war on drugs" - I have advocated against it for years, as I am confident you are aware

Seriously, we have a long history & I have said that the one thing I am frustrated with Sessions on is his attitude about this issue

As far as I know, no one in government (or anywhere else) has ever claimed that the drug problem or poverty issue is solved

You made a claim that I find to be confusing, so I am asking for clarification and proof

Pretty simple stuff Danny Boy...

I am implying, welfare benefits cannot end until Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment ends.

It should be found unConstitutional, to do otherwise.

 

[dcbl]

Okay, I understand your opinion about safety nets and the "rich"

But that is not what I asked

I asked when did anyone claim that the drug problem is solved?

When did Anyone Ever Claim, capitalism's, not Labor's, natural rate of unemployment, was solved?

Nice deflection

Has nothing to do with the question I asked

You claimed (or rather, it looks like you are claiming) that "the government says the problem is solved"

I asked if you are referring to the war on drugs and also asked for you to show me where anyone, anywhere has claimed that the problem is solved

But even if you were referring to the issue of poverty, the same question applies - who has said the problem is solved?

You made the statement, so I am assuming you are prepared to offer an example or a link...

You are implying we need to keep the drug war. I am implying, welfare benefits cannot end until Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment ends.

No, I never implied that we need to keep the "war on drugs" - I have advocated against it for years, as I am confident you are aware

Seriously, we have a long history & I have said that the one thing I am frustrated with Sessions on is his attitude about this issue

As far as I know, no one in government (or anywhere else) has ever claimed that the drug problem or poverty issue is solved

You made a claim that I find to be confusing, so I am asking for clarification and proof

Pretty simple stuff Danny Boy...

I am implying, welfare benefits cannot end until Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment ends.

It should be found unConstitutional, to do otherwise.

That's fine, I understand your opinion

I disagree, but understand

I am inherently against adding meaning to the Constitution

Charitable benefits and welfare are not a Constitutional right

I can agree that helping the needy is a goal that we should all strive for & can even agree that there is a public need and even a duty to do so

But not that it should be written into the Constitution

 

[danielpalos]

When did Anyone Ever Claim, capitalism's, not Labor's, natural rate of unemployment, was solved?

Nice deflection

Has nothing to do with the question I asked

You claimed (or rather, it looks like you are claiming) that "the government says the problem is solved"

I asked if you are referring to the war on drugs and also asked for you to show me where anyone, anywhere has claimed that the problem is solved

But even if you were referring to the issue of poverty, the same question applies - who has said the problem is solved?

You made the statement, so I am assuming you are prepared to offer an example or a link...

You are implying we need to keep the drug war. I am implying, welfare benefits cannot end until Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment ends.

No, I never implied that we need to keep the "war on drugs" - I have advocated against it for years, as I am confident you are aware

Seriously, we have a long history & I have said that the one thing I am frustrated with Sessions on is his attitude about this issue

As far as I know, no one in government (or anywhere else) has ever claimed that the drug problem or poverty issue is solved

You made a claim that I find to be confusing, so I am asking for clarification and proof

Pretty simple stuff Danny Boy...

I am implying, welfare benefits cannot end until Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment ends.

It should be found unConstitutional, to do otherwise.

That's fine, I understand your opinion

I disagree, but understand

I am inherently against adding meaning to the Constitution

Charitable benefits and welfare are not a Constitutional right

I can agree that helping the needy is a goal that we should all strive for & can even agree that there is a public need and even a duty to do so

But not that it should be written into the Constitution

The general welfare is comprehensive, not specific. You Only have, specifics.

 

[Billy000]

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?

NOT ONE substantiated FACT! How can you expect people to believe you if you think we will just believe YOU?
Here is a fact:
1) First the FACTS..
but anywhere from about 42 to 58 percent is a reasonable summary of the report’s findings and more recent data available. We rate her statement Mostly True.
Barbara Lee says 60 percent of people on food assistance are working
So that means at least 40% on food stamps aren't working.
Today, 28 states continue to waive the work requirement altogether, despite an average unemployment rate of 6.72 percent. (The nationwide unemployment rate reached 10 percent during the fallout from the recession and now stands just below 6 percent.) An additional 13 states have waived the work requirement in some parts of their states, despite an average unemployment rate of just 4.58.
Food Stamps, without Work Requirements
a) If of the 8 million able bodied 4 million became employed food stamp savings : almost $7 Billion.
b) But more importantly if these 4 million are employed at say $30,000
Just in Social security/Medicare payments BY employer and employee of 12%= $14.4 billion in
just these two sources of Tax revenue.
c) Total difference between Trump's plan to have food stamp recipients show they can't work!
$21 billion a year in difference!

Yes I was wrong about the work requirement stat. All the other facts are correct though. Of course The 2/3 stat applies to disabled people and elderly people. I forgot to mention it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

NOT ONE substantiated FACT! How can you expect people to believe you if you think we will just believe YOU?
Here is a fact:
1) First the FACTS..
but anywhere from about 42 to 58 percent is a reasonable summary of the report’s findings and more recent data available. We rate her statement Mostly True.
Barbara Lee says 60 percent of people on food assistance are working
So that means at least 40% on food stamps aren't working.
Today, 28 states continue to waive the work requirement altogether, despite an average unemployment rate of 6.72 percent. (The nationwide unemployment rate reached 10 percent during the fallout from the recession and now stands just below 6 percent.) An additional 13 states have waived the work requirement in some parts of their states, despite an average unemployment rate of just 4.58.
Food Stamps, without Work Requirements
a) If of the 8 million able bodied 4 million became employed food stamp savings : almost $7 Billion.
b) But more importantly if these 4 million are employed at say $30,000
Just in Social security/Medicare payments BY employer and employee of 12%= $14.4 billion in
just these two sources of Tax revenue.
c) Total difference between Trump's plan to have food stamp recipients show they can't work!
$21 billion a year in difference!

Yes I was wrong about the work requirement stat. All the other facts are correct though. Of course The 2/3 stat applies to disabled people and elderly people. I forgot to mention it.

I don't understand why the elderly need food stamps. Most working people prepare for their retirement years or at the very lest have a decent social security check every month.

Are those elderly lowlifes that just got old; people that have never worked or worked very little in their lives? My parents aren't rich and they've been retired for over 20 years and never needed food stamps.

 

[RealDave]

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?

.

Really? YOu are sofa king stupid you can;'t find it?

Search engines don't have listings for the voices in your head.

.

So you can't search for SNAP startitics 2016.

I believe it.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

.

Really? YOu are sofa king stupid you can;'t find it?

Search engines don't have listings for the voices in your head.

.

So you can't search for SNAP startitics 2016.

I believe it.

I'm not the one that posted unsubstantiated numbers.

.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Agreed since Ronnie "saved" SS the GOPers have used to hide the cost of tax cuts to the rich to the tune of $2.7+ trillion, now that it's due to be paid back, CONservatives/GOPers say SS is "broke". OPM

LOVE that static economic forecasting don't you?

IF what you say was true, how then did REVENUES double in the President Reagan decade?

As for Social Security going broke, simply observe the bottom line. Neutral site and I know how facts and reality are foreign to you. Need I coach you as to the meaning of the red and green numbers?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

DOUBLED? LMAOROG

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."


Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality

Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal.


"Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes," historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries, told NPR. "He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false."

Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality




First of all, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from 19.1 percent in 1981 to a low of 16.9 percent in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8 percent in 1989. One reason the deficit soared during Reagan’s term is because spending went up as a share of the economy and revenues went down.

A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.

But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion.

Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.
Rand Paul’s claim that Reagan’s tax cuts produced ‘more revenue’ and ‘tens of millions of jobs’



KNOW WHAT INFLATION IS BUTTERCUP?

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Fact and Myth

Lost all credibility.

Sorry.....

At least one of those tax increases were to clean up Jimmy Carter's HUGE screw up on Social Security. Carter said he fixed it for 30 years....not realizing they really blew the revenue forcasts....it was headed for the red and would have happened had it not been for one of Reagan's tax increases.

You are good with the talking points.

It's unfortunate you can't think for yourself....cupcake.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Do you agree to have all the income brackets, Social Security rate and deductions allowed restored and adjusted for inflation?

Sure 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

THOSE ARE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES AFTER DEDUCTIONS INCLUDES ALL SS

WHAT DOES INFLATION HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

"In other words, a person in the top 0.001 percent income bracket -- who would have an adjusted gross income of at least $62,000,000 -- pays the nearly same effective tax rate as somebody in the top 20 percent bracket who makes $85,000 in adjusted gross income."

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

ROTFLMAO

Shocking you couldn't refute it cupcake

What's to refute.

Everything you posted, in terms of tax rates, is true.

What makes me laugh is that you somehow that is a bad think.

I say...let's cut their taxes more.

And two can play at the "cupcake" game....dickweed.

Sure cupcake, cut taxes more if the desired result is more debt

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia

Such a simplified graph of a very complex and massive multivariable system is the produce of a propaganda machine.

Nice try.

Wow...Look how OBAMA jumped it so far up (and you can spare me the Bush Recession...if you are going to apply the name of each president to what happened on his watch without context as to what was happening....then OBAMA OWNS IT).

Sorry.....dickweed.

 

[dcbl]

.

Liberals on this forum imitate what we see in real life

They make ridiculous claims and then dance and celebrate like they have "won" when their foolish claims are not refuted with "proof"

 

[Sun Devil 92]

.

Liberals on this forum imitate what we see in real life

They make ridiculous claims and then dance and celebrate like they have "won" when their foolish claims are not refuted with "proof"

Just to be clear....I don't believe these are liberals.

I consider myself a liberal.

They are left wingers.

They are arrogant...they can never be wrong.
They want to use government to force us to go along with their concept of the "greater good" (which they can never define).

And.....they got their butts kicked in November....now they sit on the sideline watching Trump run the show.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

Because food stamp usage is very visible. People see an overweight well dressed woman putting a SNAP card in the credit card machine at a grocery store and assume that this person should not be receiving any help from the government. However, what they don't see is two Alzheimer parents she has to care for while maintaining a full time job, or the fact that she is only getting $20 a month in benefits. What most people believe about food stamp recipients is mostly wrong. My daughter received food stamps for several years after her husband died until she build up her income from her business. I'm sure many people thought she should not be receiving food stamps simple because she had a nice car and a business that her husband left her. However the facts are she had 3 kids living in a 2 bedroom apartment, the car was her husbands, she worked over 60 hours a week, and she only got $40 a month from SNAP and she had no other benefits other than Medicaid. Thanks to help from friends, relatives, and the government, she is now self sufficient.

These are the more common stories of people on government support, not the fictitious welfare queen of the 1980s.

Which is great to read.

It is difficult for me to imagine anyone having an issue with what you described.

But, I've been in grocery lines where people pull out a SNAP card to pay for the front end of their purchase (food), and then shell out 50 bucks for beer, scotch, and cigarretts. I don't care if that is birthday money, it's wrong.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is great to read.

It is difficult for me to imagine anyone having an issue with what you described.

But, I've been in grocery lines where people pull out a SNAP card to pay for the front end of their purchase (food), and then shell out 50 bucks for beer, scotch, and cigarretts. I don't care if that is birthday money, it's wrong.

The libs here are telling me I'm the only one that ever had that experience. I guess that makes two of us in the entire USA.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

NOT ONE substantiated FACT! How can you expect people to believe you if you think we will just believe YOU?
Here is a fact:
1) First the FACTS..
but anywhere from about 42 to 58 percent is a reasonable summary of the report’s findings and more recent data available. We rate her statement Mostly True.
Barbara Lee says 60 percent of people on food assistance are working
So that means at least 40% on food stamps aren't working.
Today, 28 states continue to waive the work requirement altogether, despite an average unemployment rate of 6.72 percent. (The nationwide unemployment rate reached 10 percent during the fallout from the recession and now stands just below 6 percent.) An additional 13 states have waived the work requirement in some parts of their states, despite an average unemployment rate of just 4.58.
Food Stamps, without Work Requirements
a) If of the 8 million able bodied 4 million became employed food stamp savings : almost $7 Billion.
b) But more importantly if these 4 million are employed at say $30,000
Just in Social security/Medicare payments BY employer and employee of 12%= $14.4 billion in
just these two sources of Tax revenue.
c) Total difference between Trump's plan to have food stamp recipients show they can't work!
$21 billion a year in difference!

Yes I was wrong about the work requirement stat. All the other facts are correct though. Of course The 2/3 stat applies to disabled people and elderly people. I forgot to mention it.

I don't understand why the elderly need food stamps. Most working people prepare for their retirement years or at the very lest have a decent social security check every month.

Are those elderly lowlifes that just got old; people that have never worked or worked very little in their lives? My parents aren't rich and they've been retired for over 20 years and never needed food stamps.

not all do.