Greatest Country In The World Votes To Cut Food Stamps To Poor

But what if no one gives him a fishing pole?

 

Take many members of the 99%, whether they went to college or not , whether they have desk jobs or not, and feed them a continual diet of spin devised by think tanks and pr experts funded by billionaires and they will vote for the interests of the 1% and against their own interests and against the interests of their less well off neighbors all day long.

 

Not this again. Yes, in some areas frackers compete with farmers and local municipalities for water. However, in some cases, they can get by using gray water (non-potable).

 

90% of the lake is accessible to 1% of man. The rest of man have access to the other 10% and you got an unsustainable situation.

 

They should be cutting farm subsidies, but neither party has the will.

 

No. Not until you people stop accusing people like me of being bigoted haters of the poor who just want to kill people we donlt like. Spare me the civility talk, I am not buying it.

No. It is the most useful emoticon in the inventory in the D&D.

I only use them when necessary. It's necessary alot in this forum.

BTW, do you really think that anything said in this forum means anything at all? We are monkeys flinging poo at each other.

And in my humble opinion when I see moronic statements such as how maybe mighta kinda we oughtta outlaw libertarianism I will point out how f^ked up they are, and when I see statements by mouthbreathers accusing people who simply want responsible governance and a reduction of fraud, waste, and abuse of wanting to starve people to death made in this forum I will most certainly respond with a rolleyes emoticon and call such a statement moronic.

You want civility? Approach the conversation with intellectual honesty and you will get a civil discussion from me. Don't, and I will fling my excrement at you. That is how I roll.

(c'mon, I had to do it)

 

"re-targeting" ag subsidies is the current buzzword, in addition to cutting govt $$$ to giant corporations

 

This is just absurd.

We need to get real economically in this country. Eisenhower advised us to beware of the industrial military complex. We didn't listen. Our military budget is bloated with these contracts. We haven't met a social program we won't spend money on. We send a staggering amount of money on foreign aid. Meanwhile, the middle class is being taxed at every turn by all levels of government. This bars most of them from doing things like sending their kids to college without a ton of debt. This problem will have its day of reckoning and it won't be pretty.

Perhaps we would be better off in the long run by cutting fat contracts out of the military budget and refocusing our social programs on job training rather than simply cutting checks.

 

It's moronic to cut food stamps. THe idea conservatives have of lazy poor people who spend all their money on booze and smokes shows what's wrong with their side. They judge a situation from the worst lens. Then they think charities can feed 25% of the population. Or that these people can just go to college and get a great job, because you know, they got a job. Like there are 200 million white collar jobs even available.

It's a ridiculous fantasy world. They want to keep every last penny from taxes - thei rmoney, that is only possible because there are people willing to work the jobs no one wants. The low-income workers who drive trucks, build houses, manufacture their crap whether it's here or in china, these are the people who create the means by which they can live their lives. Take them away and their jobs would be gone too.

And yet all they can do is call these people lazy. Because these are the people who are on food stamps.

 

SL42, your argument is exactly the moronic type of argument I was calling out earlier. There ARE lazy-a$$ people out there who are capable of working but simply do not want to work. There ARE people out there who use SNAP to get their food and their cash to get their alcohol. There ARE a good number of SNAP recipients who are on drugs. It's not a goddamned fantasy. I used to deal with those people ALL THE TIME when I was working for CPS. Almost all of our "clients" were on SNAP. Almost every single real case we had involved drug abuse. And it was always someone else's fault.

Stop playing interference for junkies and welfare addicts.There is room to make some cuts, and the fact that you try and claim that there is no waste, fraud, or abuse - which is what you are doing with your line of argument - makes me question your motives.

 

You will use the abuses of a handful to force millions of childrens to starve. It's ironic that an atheist care more for the well being of children than the oh-so-godly righteous Christian you are!



There's a level of contempt that people like yourself have for the poor that's pretty pathetic.

 

It saddens me that someone so filled with anger and vitriol was entrusted with children's well-being. You can't even keep it under control enough to fit in around here, and that's saying something.

Anyway, why would you assume the people who end up at CPS compose a nonbiased representation of the moral fiber of SNAP recipients? Also, care to explain how the proposed $40 billion gutting of SNAP, and the across-the-board cuts already scheduled for November, will manage to avoid impacting those who are truly in need?

 

Uh, no "millions of children" are NOT going to starve. That is pure and complete BS and the worst sort of demagoguery. This legislation would kick people off who fail drug tests, and people who make no effort to find work.

Please explain to me why you believe that we should encourage drug abuse by allowing people who use drugs to buy their food with Lone Star cards and their drugs with cash? Also, please explain to me why you think it's OK for someone to stay on SNAP indefinitely and not bother looking for work? If you oppose this legislation then you must support those items. And if you don't support them then exactly why do you oppose this legislation? Oh yeah, right, it's going to kill "millions of children"...

And if you actually cared about the children you wouldn't see fit to enslaving future generations under a mountain of debt just so that you can win a few elections by buying some votes.

And there it is again. YOU REALLY JUST HATE THE POOR!]/I]



It is absolutely impossible to have a rational discussion about this with a person who 1) refuses to admit that waste, fraud, and abuse exists and is a problem, and 2) does nothing but demagogue his opponents as "haters of the poor". What this tells me is that you are simply incapable of thinking about this rationally and are approaching it purely from a standpoint of emotion.

YOU and people LIKE YOU are the reason that this problem is ballooning and running out of control. YOU and people LIKE YOU are the reason that we have so many people in this country running around with an entitlement mindset that enslaves them to government mercy.

 

Blah, blah, blah, you morons get as much respect from me as you deserve with your dishonest and insulting arguments. If you are going to sit here and tell me that I just hate the poor and want to starve millions of children then, again, I will fling my poo right back at you, because that is all that you are doing to me.

Er, when did I say that they were representative of the overall SNAP recipient population? I put that out there as an example to SL42 that those people *DO* exist, as he apparently does not believe that waste, fraud, and abuse are real phenomena in the SNAP program.

Because it is NOT a $40 billion cut, it is a $4 billion per year cut to take place over 10 years. It is a 5% reduction in a program that has brown by over 70% over the last 5 years.

You can't have an honest debate when you are throwing around numbers like $40bn without mentioning that it takes place over a 10 year span. That is ridiculously intellectually disingenuous, and I refuse to be civil with anyone who wants to play like that.

 

First of all, SNAP already had legislations to move people towards work. As for drug testing, I thought you were against the mommy state? Why should we spend MORE MONEY on something that won't save money. That's just moronic to the core. SNAP is the most effective entitlement program, there's no need to screw with it.

It sucks that people use cash to buy drugs. Guess what, that's a problem not just with people on SNAP. You can't go in there and try to run people's lives. You conservatives want to tell people how to live their lives when it suits your needs, but god forbid anyone tell you what kind of health insurance you can have.

 

Glad to see you concede this point. So we agree that the people you were dealing with are not representative of SNAP recipients as a whole. Considering that, it's odd that you decided to call Sweet Lou 42's post "moronic," as what you're now saying moots your response to his post. He didn't say that waste and fraud don't exist, just that it's unfair when conservatives paint all SNAP recipients with that broad brush. If all you're saying is that "those people DO exist," then why did you object to what he said?

It's entirely common to talk about federal spending levels in terms of a 10-year period, and I figured that anyone who's read the thread would know that's what's being discussed, but I'll be more clear next time. Anyone who's familiar with my posts knows that I like to keep it factual. Anyway, can you point me to a thread in the D&D where you've been civil with anyone?

 

To keep this on track and fact-based, it's not just about the $40 billion cut over the next ten years. The increase in SNAP over the last five years is a result of the economic crisis and legislation in the 2009 Recovery Act that temporarily boosted benefits. That legislation is already set to expire, and Republicans have prevented its extension even though household incomes have not recovered from the recession.

So in addition to the Republican cuts being discussed in this thread, SNAP is already facing a $5 billion annual reduction starting in November. That translates to a $29 monthly reduction in benefits for families of three, even before these new cuts. That's going to hit poor families hard, while saving taxpayers about 1/4 of what we spend on farm subsidies each year.

 

Doesn't seem to work all that well, does it?

I am. I am also against giving taxpayer money to druggies to that they can buy food with it and use their own cash to buy their drugs. I say let them choose between food and drugs.

How would it not save money? You cut benefits for anyone who fails a drug test. The drug test units themselves don't cost much at all when you buy them in bulk.

That's just moronic to the core. So it's a perfect system, is it? Absolutely no kinks, right? Again, I want to hear you say it. "I support giving SNAP money to druggies". "I support giving SNAP money to people who refuse to look for or get a job". Go ahead, it's a perfect system. Say it.

You finally said something that isn't stupid. This is progress.

True, but with SNAP we have some leverage, and the ability to refuse taxpayer money to those who won't stop doing drugs. With others we do not have that ability.

The hell we can't, we sure as hell can if they are going to be taking public money.

If someone wants public, taxpayer money then the government is well within its rights to set conditions - such as you need to try to work, and you need to stay off of drugs. I find it absolutely amazing that you think that the government should simply hand out money to anyone who wants it, no strings attached. Druggie can;t afford food after he's bought his meth? Here's some money for ya, just don't give it to your dealer, egh? Haven't had a job in a couple of years, and don;t really feel like working, eh? Hey, here's some money for ya. The broker you are the more ya get...

I really shouldn't have broken this sentence up, it's just priceless. You tell me that it's not OK for the government to set conditions for those seeking public money and in the same sentence tell me it's totally cool for the government to force you to buy something? Ridiculous.

 

The only solution is to defeat Republicans at every level of government and to replace establishment Democrats with real progressives.

 

Concede it? It was never a point of argument. If it was then it was in your head.

Of course. As I said I was once on it, and I've never had a CPS case called on myself...

Er, no, SL42 refuses to admit that a portion of the SNAP population is on drugs and does refuse to work. That is a moronic position to take. I never claimed that ALL SNAP recipients were lazy druggies - you imagined that one.

Well, no, that's not what he said. He refuses to admit that it is a problem with the program (he said so in the post right above yours). So he admits that the problem exists, he just doesn't care.

I object to what he said for two main reasons: 1) as I said, he doesn't care to fix the problems with SNAP, and 2) his categorization of conservatives or anyone else who actually does care and wants to fix the program as heartless monsters who want millions of children to starve to death is absurd, and it is insulting.

Oh no you don't, you don't get to cop out like that. The $40bn figure is meaningless unless the timeframe is included. The media is working overtime to create the impression that this legislation would gut SNAP, when the truth is that it is a very small proposed cut in a program that has nearly doubled in size over the last few years.

I will be civil with anyone who actually wants to debate this rationally without accusing those on my side of wanting to murder children.

LOL, so it's the Republicans' fault that SNAP has grown by over 70% under POTUS? Did you really just make that argument?

C'mon man, how am I supposed to keep it civil if we are going to argue absurd garbage like that? Are you trolling me now, or what? :grin: