Obama sets a food stamp record...AGAIN.

It feels like when conservatives say that they don't want to pay for other peoples "mistakes" that they're trying their best to ignore that these "mistakes" are often children and the children will suffer sometimes cause of shitty parents.

Do conservatives think the ones that are simply "freeloaders" will just shape up and get great jobs if we take away welfare? And if they don't?

Just screw the kid... Cause him/her was a mistake anyway because keeping kids alive only should be guaranteed if the child is in the woman's body.

[QUOTE=boozehound]this is something I agree with. You shouldnt be able to buy soda and candy and all that shit with foodstamps. WIC is restricted to (relatively) healthy foods, why cant foodstamps.[/QUOTE]

I agree.

When 85-90% of the budget is used on other things im not thinking we need to look at potentially misused charity for the poor very soon when we list all our ills. If half of all food stamps arent needed its what....4% of the budget depending on the source? The poor dont need to be the first to get kicked to the curb. If not spent on poor kids and under(or even un) employed people its just spent on something else. It doesnt go back into the peoples pockets. Once its gone its gone.

**** it. Help the poor. Even if some dont need it as bad as they say. Greater good. Id rather help 6 that need it and 4 who dont than just 3 who need it.

How the **** could you be against food stamps? Damn I can't believe how some here are so passionately apathetic toward the poor.

So hawker's solution is everyone should only pursue career's that pay really well? This fukcing guy is so detached from reality it's hilarious. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=bdreason]So hawker's solution is everyone should only pursue career's that pay really well? This fukcing guy is so detached from reality it's hilarious. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]
Don't you know? He happens to have a job he enjoys doing and it [I]magically [/I]pays really well.

[QUOTE=longhornfan1234]Before the Government started taxing people in order to provide "charity", the churches and private charities DID cover welfare (along with people relying on their own families).[/QUOTE]
Yeah, they did such a great job!

[IMG]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110511212436/zombie/images/1/1a/Shanty_town.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=longhornfan1234]Before the Government started taxing people in order to provide "charity", the churches and private charities DID cover welfare (along with people relying on their own families).[/QUOTE]

Can you provide a link to the revisionist historical sites you get this information from?

[QUOTE=IcanzIIravor]Can you provide a link to the revisionist historical sites you get this information from?[/QUOTE]

Google is your friend. It's common knowledge. Get a valid education from a non-lib indoctrination center and then you will understand the nature of our history and the nobility of our God-believing people. Tell your lib professors to screw themselves. Before FDR started pushing through the New Deal, about 1 in 3 Americans belonged to Mutual Aid Societies, where they would help their fellow members and others in the community.

Those organizations are effectively gone after gov created welfare.

[QUOTE=longhornfan1234]Google is your friend. It's common knowledge. Get a valid education from a non-lib indoctrination center and then you will understand the nature of our history and the nobility of our God-believing people. Tell your lib professors to screw themselves. Before FDR started pushing through the New Deal, about 1 in 3 Americans belonged to Mutual Aid Societies, where they would help their fellow members and others in the community.

Those organizations are effectively gone after gov created welfare.[/QUOTE]
And you know these societies were enough? Funny to see you spout bs about indoctrination centers when you're the one that was fooled by your sources into thinking Romney was winning. You don't know what you don't know, and that's why you persistently fail to spread your lack of knowledge.

[QUOTE=Nanners]you need this explained??

i pay taxes. then, the us government decides to give massive tax breaks to your industry... is it really too hard for you to connect the dots on that one?

the only difference between a tax break and a subsidy is the letters used in the word. bottom line, they are both free (taxpayer) money from the government. if you want to argue semantics, you should talk to primetime or something.[/QUOTE]

You also receive tax breaks like standard deduction, personal exemption and etc.

If you went to school you received a tax deduction in tuition and possibly tuition interest. If you own a home you receive a deduction in property taxes and mortgage interest. Theres a bunch more deductions the govt gives to subsidize peoples lifestyles that cause innefficiencies in the marketplace ie tuition costs, home values etc. B

Which deductions and credits are you speaking of? There are many deductions the govt gives which i dont agree with either take nol, research and devolpment, hiring credits.

As for rmwg just because wastless money was spent in iraq doesnt mske welfare spending ok. I hope you can see the fallacy in this argumen.

[QUOTE=ALBballer]As for rmwg just because wastless money was spent in iraq doesnt mske welfare spending ok. I hope you can see the fallacy in this argumen.[/QUOTE]
See the fallacy? I can barely even read it...

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]See the fallacy? I can barely even read it...[/QUOTE]

Stop trying to divert the attention from my point to some spelling/grammar mistakes. Im typing from my phone..

Kthanxbi

[QUOTE=ALBballer]Stop trying to divert the attention from my point to some spelling/grammar mistakes. Im typing from my phone..

Kthanxbi[/QUOTE]
It's not much of a point. I've already said why I support the food stamp program. I believe in feeding the hungry. I also pointed out the fact that it's a small part of the budget. Cutting ti will still leave us with massive deficits. You don't agree? Fine. But you haven't made much of a point.

"kthanxbi"

So by feeding more people, Obama's an asshole? lol

It's amazing at the beatings conservatives take, and yet they still comeback for more. :lol

Dems/GOP love tossing around the word sustainability.. what is sustainable about this government? We can't even fund it.. we have to go into debt to pay our obligations.

To me it's clear, we have to give the power back to the states. We need more variation in this country, we can't have 1 central government ruling all of us to this degree. It just doesn't work.

[QUOTE=joe]Dems/GOP love tossing around the word sustainability.. what is sustainable about this government? We can't even fund it.. we have to go into debt to pay our obligations.

To me it's clear, we have to give the power back to the states. We need more variation in this country, we can't have 1 central government ruling all of us to this degree. It just doesn't work.[/QUOTE]

Isn't America already one of the most decentralized states on the planet??? When competing against Europe, China, India, etc. then pulling in the same direction to maximize outcomes makes sense to some degree.

As for sustainability, what is sustainable about any American governance system if the standard of American living is beyond normal means???

[QUOTE=joe]Dems/GOP love tossing around the word sustainability.. what is sustainable about this government? We can't even fund it.. we have to go into debt to pay our obligations.

To me it's clear, we have to give the power back to the states. We need more variation in this country, we can't have 1 central government ruling all of us to this degree. It just doesn't work.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I want thinks like gay marriage approved for ALL the states. Same for pot use even though I'm not a smoker myself. There are somethings I want states to be forced to comply with. Sometimes you have to drag people along. I'm not interested in waiting for the oldies to die out so that gay americans can finally be allowed to act like adults and get married if they want too. Nobody is going to reverse my mind on that. I'm very against banning things. When you have "the war on" you're usually setting yourself up for failure.

The War on poverty?

-Failure

The War on drugs?

-Failure

The War on terror?

-Failure

At the same time, that doesn't mean that I think we should destroy welfare, but reforms need to take place. The War on Terror is KILLING PEOPLE. It's killing our people, and non americans. The War on Drugs is putting a large number of people in prison.

Welfare? Yeah, it comes at a cost to americans also. But at the end of the day, it's putting food in people's mouth. And that's probably why even a guy like Ron Paul talks about The War on Drugs and The War on Terror more than he does welfare. Or at least, that is what I'm seeing. He and everyone else knows that the last two kill and throw people in prison needlessly.

So, I'm sorry... But I'm not wanting to wait for states to decide on things like pot because people are needlessly getting thrown in jail. Thousands of people. That is not something to be taken lightly, or something that we should just allow states to make up their mind on because there will be states in which it might not be made legal. Therefore, people will continue to get arrested and thrown in jail.

i actually tied to get a link card this year...

... they wouldnt give me one :coleman:


but they gave one of my friends one and he doesnt pay rent or anything. he lives with his mom :coleman:


maybe its times for a second try :D

[QUOTE=Hotlantadude81]Sorry, I want thinks like gay marriage approved for ALL the states. Same for pot use even though I'm not a smoker myself. There are somethings I want states to be forced to comply with. Sometimes you have to drag people along. I'm not interested in waiting for the oldies to die out so that gay americans can finally be allowed to act like adults and get married if they want too. Nobody is going to reverse my mind on that. I'm very against banning things. When you have "the war on" you're usually setting yourself up for failure.

The War on poverty?

-Failure

The War on drugs?

-Failure

The War on terror?

-Failure

At the same time, that doesn't mean that I think we should destroy welfare, but reforms need to take place. The War on Terror is KILLING PEOPLE. It's killing our people, and non americans. The War on Drugs is putting a large number of people in prison.

Welfare? Yeah, it comes at a cost to americans also. But at the end of the day, it's putting food in people's mouth. And that's probably why even a guy like Ron Paul talks about The War on Drugs and The War on Terror more than he does welfare. Or at least, that is what I'm seeing. He and everyone else knows that the last two kill and throw people in prison needlessly.

So, I'm sorry... But I'm not wanting to wait for states to decide on things like pot because people are needlessly getting thrown in jail. Thousands of people. That is not something to be taken lightly, or something that we should just allow states to make up their mind on because there will be states in which it might not be made legal. Therefore, people will continue to get arrested and thrown in jail.[/QUOTE]

Your argument is backwards and misaligned. It's the federal government waging all of those wars you listed. States rights would be a great way to fight AGAINST that sort of garbage.

Right now we have 1 state handing down trash laws for 50 other states to follow. Imagine if the state of Texas made the rules for the rest of us? And whatever Texas did, we all had to follow it? That's what we have right now coming from Washington DC.

Washington DC wants to invade Iraq based on lies? 50 states have no say in the matter. Washington DC wants to wage war on drugs? All the states fund it. Washington DC wants to have 35% income taxes, states have no recourse.

Forget the fact that I'm a libertarian, this just sounds like the most cockamamie idea I've ever heard. For a country that likes to call itself "free" and talk about personal liberties, what is so free and personal about 1 city handing down dictates on 50 states to this degree?

[QUOTE=MMM]Isn't America already one of the most decentralized states on the planet??? When competing against Europe, China, India, etc. then pulling in the same direction to maximize outcomes makes sense to some degree.

As for sustainability, what is sustainable about any American governance system if the standard of American living is beyond normal means???[/QUOTE]

The standard of American living was beyond normal means in the past because we actually produced those standards. The output of our economy justified that kind of standard. It wasn't based on debt and central banking like it is today.

We were extremely decentralized, not the case anymore. There's been an enormous centralization of power, mostly in the executive branch.

[QUOTE=joe]Your argument is backwards and misaligned. It's the federal government waging all of those wars you listed. States rights would be a great way to fight AGAINST that sort of garbage.

Right now we have 1 state handing down trash laws for 50 other states to follow. Imagine if the state of Texas made the rules for the rest of us? And whatever Texas did, we all had to follow it? That's what we have right now coming from Washington DC.

Washington DC wants to invade Iraq based on lies? 50 states have no say in the matter. Washington DC wants to wage war on drugs? All the states fund it. Washington DC wants to have 35% income taxes, states have no recourse.

Forget the fact that I'm a libertarian, this just sounds like the most cockamamie idea I've ever heard. For a country that likes to call itself "free" and talk about personal liberties, what is so free and personal about 1 city handing down dictates on 50 states to this degree?[/QUOTE]

i really dont know whether to laugh or cry.... first there is absurdity of the analogy that you base your post around, or the fact that you actually use the word "cockamamie".

"why let the state of washington dc decide all the rules"

is this real life?

[QUOTE=joe]The standard of American living was beyond normal means in the past because we actually produced those standards. The output of our economy justified that kind of standard. It wasn't based on debt and central banking like it is today.

We were extremely decentralized, not the case anymore. There's been an enormous centralization of power, mostly in the executive branch.[/QUOTE]

America remains one of the most decentralized nations in the world and the "leader of the free world" has less impact on decision making than his counterparts around the world.

Since you are an advocate of smaller government I just want to point out that centralizing certain aspects can actually result in reduction of redundancy and government.

As for sustainability It seems we have a different understanding of the word. As long as America (tiny minority) is addicted to consuming a large percentage of the worlds resources then sustainability will remain a large issue.

[QUOTE=Nanners]i really dont know whether to laugh or cry.... first there is absurdity of the analogy that you base your post around, or the fact that you actually use the word "cockamamie".

"why let the state of washington dc decide all the rules"

is this real life?[/QUOTE]

Not state as in being 1 of 50. One state as in, one government.

Having 1 central government controlling an area as large as the US is absurdity. The 50 states lack the means to resist federal law. What the federal government says, goes- and that is a dangerous proposition whether you realize it or not.

And look who you're talking to... I'm not exactly a lover of state governments either. They do retarded, yes, COCKAMAMIE things all the time. Want to talk about dumb things state governments do? I'll be laughing at them with you. But that's even more reason to want to have 50 individualized states, to give the people more recourse if 1 state wants to engage in buffoonery. It's a lot easier to move from New York to Pennsylvania than to leave the country entirely.

[QUOTE=MMM]America remains one of the most decentralized nations in the world and the "leader of the free world" has less impact on decision making than his counterparts around the world.

Since you are an advocate of smaller government I just want to point out that centralizing certain aspects can actually result in reduction of redundancy and government.
[/QUOTE]

In what ways do we have less impact on decision making around the world than our counterparts?

Regardless, I wasn't talking about our decision making around the world.. I'm talking about within our borders. Are we more decentralized than China? You're probably right.. but China isn't what we should aspire to. IMO

[QUOTE]
As for sustainability It seems we have a different understanding of the word. As long as America (tiny minority) is addicted to consuming a large percentage of the worlds resources then sustainability will remain a large issue.[/QUOTE]

I agree. The only caveat I'd add is that in the past, America rightfully enjoyed our high standard of living. I don't believe the American consumer society was [I]always [/I]unsustainable. It was very sustainable when it was built on production, savings, capital, investment, etc. It is unsustainable today because it's built on debt and money printing.

[QUOTE=joe]Your argument is backwards and misaligned. It's the federal government waging all of those wars you listed. States rights would be a great way to fight AGAINST that sort of garbage.

Right now we have 1 state handing down trash laws for 50 other states to follow. Imagine if the state of Texas made the rules for the rest of us? And whatever Texas did, we all had to follow it? That's what we have right now coming from Washington DC.

Washington DC wants to invade Iraq based on lies? 50 states have no say in the matter. Washington DC wants to wage war on drugs? All the states fund it. Washington DC wants to have 35% income taxes, states have no recourse.

Forget the fact that I'm a libertarian, this just sounds like the most cockamamie idea I've ever heard. For a country that likes to call itself "free" and talk about personal liberties, what is so free and personal about 1 city handing down dictates on 50 states to this degree?[/QUOTE]

My argument is NOT backwards. I know that feds don't want pot to be legal. I know that. Saying that I want government to force it to be legal in all states doesn't not mean that's what I think government does want. I know that. I know that want to crackdown. But I also have my doubts that it would be legal in every state if everything is just left to the states. And I'm tired of waiting on states to approve. Thousands of people are being locked up, and I'm tired of waiting for states to stop it.

So yes, I understand that government is currently working against my wishes. Just because I don't believe that no government is the answer, that doesn't mean I approve of what they're currently doing. Please don't mistaken me for a Democrat. I don't want states deciding on pot and gay marriage. Maybe I'm not a hardcore libertarian, but I am more libertarian than a lot of the democrats.

[QUOTE=joe]In what ways do we have less impact on decision making around the world than our counterparts?

Regardless, I wasn't talking about our decision making around the world.. I'm talking about within our borders. Are we more decentralized than China? You're probably right.. but China isn't what we should aspire to. IMO[/QUOTE]

I meant the Canadian or British Prime minster have more decision making powers than the American President. The American system gives too much power to congress/senate so much so that they can filibuster what the majority want.

Also there is nothing wrong with aspiring or emulating other countries if they are doing things correctly, that includes even China. The Chinese in some aspects are a great story, highest saving rates/lowest debt.

If you believe individual states can learn from each other in a decentralized union. Then couldn't America as a nation also learn from countries that have lower debt rates, lower crime rates, better health outcomes, and better k-12 education.

[QUOTE=joe]I agree. The only caveat I'd add is that in the past, America rightfully enjoyed our high standard of living. I don't believe the American consumer society was [I]always [/I]unsustainable. It was very sustainable when it was built on production, savings, capital, investment, etc. It is unsustainable today because it's built on debt and money printing.[/QUOTE]

The world populations continues to skyrocket and putting increase strain on the world resources. I don't believe it truly matter if America was debt free if one American child consumes as much as 7 in developing nations.

Fun thread.

Letting private charity replace welfare would do a hell of a lot good for this country. For starters, it'd separate the freeloaders from those who are in an unfortunate situation and want to work out of it.

[QUOTE=longhornfan1234][url]http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/09/food-stamp-use-reaches-another-high-in-september-47-7-million-participants/[/url]

:facepalm



What's a shame is the shit the obese slobs that are a large part of food stamp nation are allowed to buy... frozen pizza, frozen nuggets, and cases of Big Red.[/QUOTE]
You are a real piece of sh!t.