Government wants more people on food stamps

That's right. Reps want to get rid of everything that helps middle-class and below. That just shows they don't really care about all Americans, just those that have lots of money and political influence.

Oh sure, that's why Obama is ahead in the swing states, because they see him as an empty suit. Get real.

 

Dead on! When there are freebies available, a number of people (who are in fact animals - let us not be mistaken on this point) will certainly find a way to game the system and take what they can, all the while inventing excuses for themselves. They will convince even themselves that they're unable to work, and so "need" those freebies. They make something of a job or hobby out of getting that stuff. It becomes their way of life and "earning a living." They're comparable to those who make a lifestyle out of cheating others in a (properly) criminal fashion.

 

Comparing poor people to animals is so typical of Republican party members. Denying poor people food and help is not the same as not providing food to wild animals who go out and hunt for it, if that was the case, Jesus would have told the people not to help the poor. Amazing that so many Republicans consider themselves Christian, but accept such stupid comparisons just to save a few pennies.

 

Please post one person who has died in America from malnutrition because there was no food to eat? I can't believe liberals struggle with understanding behavior, because dependency is dependency no matter what kind of animal you are.

BTW, conservatives out give liberals by a considerable margin, so that pretty much nullifies your ignorant comment about conservatives not caring. Liberals are exactly the reason this nation is seeing the worst of times, and we have a president who encourages it.

 

Obama has also killed every job creating opportunity that has fell into his lap.
The Keystone Pipeline would create far over 100K jobs guaranteed and he wouldn't approve it.

 

Are you so wrapped up in your white cocoon that you are oblivious to the plight of many in the US. You need to start watching something besides Faux News, it is brainwashing you into thinking that everyone in America is rich and those that are on welfare are faking it. I guess in Republican/conservative minds, as long as they don't die, it's okay to let them starve?

Children across the country are going without food and other necessities year round, but there is something you can do about it – build a Kid's Stuff Shoe Box Gift and we'll deliver it for you!
http://www.feedthechildren.org/site/PageServer?pagename=org_kids_stuff_USA

Although there are several federal and state social-benefit systems in the U.S., a variety of obstacles, such as the high cost of health care and the lack of adequate housing, leads people further into poverty and becomes an abuse of their human rights. Official statistics show that 12.7 percent (or 37 million) of the population in the U.S. lived in poverty in 2004, while 15.7 percent (45.8 million) lacked health-insurance coverage; 11.9 percent of households (comprising 38.2 million people, including 13.9 million children) experienced food insecurity.

It is estimated that 33 million Americans continue to live in households without an adequate supply of food. According to statistics from the Bread for the World Institute, 3.5 percent of U.S. households experience hunger (9.6 million people, including 3 million children.) Children are a disproportionate share of the poor in the U.S. Although they are 26 percent of the total population, they constitute 39 percent of the poor.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0104-24.htm

That's another bull(*)(*)(*)(*) story propagated by Republicans. The fact is that Republicans would do away with Welfare, Obamacare and anything that helps the poor, so quit with your BS that Republicans are so generous. They do give corporations and the wealthy tax cuts, maybe that is why you think they are generous?

 

This is not true. In fact the whole reason we have food stamps in the first place is because the government profits from it. Especially in bad times. It's much better for the economy to give people who can't afford food money to eat then to let them clog up our streets and prisons

 

Typical liberal talking points - garbage.

People are waking up.

 

Republican/conservative talking points, when they can't refute. Thank you for proving it.

Yes, and they are beginning to realize the Republican party is all about the rich. Tax cuts for the rich and to hell with the poor.

 

You just proved my point...again.

 

Most poor are fat, sick because their fat, and dependent upon welfare checks every month. Its not their fault they have no other choice and its not the governments will to pay them off for votes its the business mans fault for all this, the white man because he's profiting too much and not spreading the wealth so its neccessary to get more people on food stamps for both votes to force them to redistribute their wealth and because they are not employable due to being sick, fat, or disabled.

 

I'm so glad that you are finally realizing that the Republican is the party for the rich. Thanks for admitting, glad I was able to help you.

 

You are the one that is the sucker.
Why?
Because you believe that quoted statement above without qualification.

I'm certainly NOT a Republican, but I can tell you that both the Republicans and myself WOULD do away with welfare, but it would be under the circumstances that welfare gives way to the poor being able to support themselves. There will STILL be needs for SOME welfare--- for people in a vegetative state, or people with no arms and no legs, or even for fully capable people who happen to be TEMPORARILY out of work.

But it's the DEMOCRATS (liberals actually, not so much Dems) who don't seem to care at all about getting the poor to a HIGHER LEVEL. The liberals seem to want to KEEP the poor at the level where they need food stamps. That is shameful.

And you my friend, appear to be too much of a sucker for the smooth talk of liberalism to understand this all.

I feel, in a way, sad for you.

 

I'm not financially wealthy by any means, my wife and I make about 65k per year. But I can tell you that your statement above needs some clarification. I have a question about that statement. You say "not spreading the wealth".

My question is "What wealth"?

Once you spread the wealth of the rich, there will no longer be anyone with enough assets (or motivation) to create any more wealth than just what can be achieved through one man's work for one man. You're trying to make EVERYONE into what is now low middle class, or even upper low class.

You don't know it, but you WANT some very rich people in the non-govt area. They shouldn't be as rich as they are, that's totally unnecessary, I believe, and it should be regulated with certain strictures on business. But if you're trying to make everyone's financial condition in even the same ballpark, you're giving up flavored yougurt for plain, and you're also likely giving up the hopes of ever "doing really well" yourself (not billions for yourself, but at least hundreds of thousands well)

You better be careful what you wish for.
***Not all poor people are lazy, but all lazy people are poor.*** Don't you forget that.

And don't forget that I'm not "rich" but I still don't resent the rich (though as I said, no one needs to be a BILLIONaire, I'm guessing). America has made a little TOO much progress, IMO. (and the too much part is not necessarily GOOD progress).

 

Suckers are the ones that know what their party is doing and continue to deny it. Republicans in Congress have voted 33 times to repeal Obamacare, wasting $50M of taxpayer's money knowing their repeal will go nowhere. Do you know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Refute my charges, or we will know who the sucker is.


House Republicans plan to vote this month to extend for a year all of the Bush tax cuts, for middle- and upper-income people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/us/politics/obama-seeks-2013-tax-cuts-within-limits.html?_r=1

So why do the aforementioned super-rich, Right Wing Republicans want to destroy Social Security in order to “save it?” The answer is that they don’t want to save it. These are people who pay tens of millions of dollars in taxes every year and have incomes, annual incomes, in the hundreds of millions. They are tired of paying tens of millions, even though they cannot even spend–as hard as they try–the hundreds of millions they are left after taxes.
http://www.populistdaily.com/politi...arty-billionaires-attack-social-security.html

GOP: here's the campaign platform conservatives want to see
4. I will veto any budget or appropriations bill that funds Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider, or that funds "comprehensive" sex education programs.
5. I will veto any budget or appropriations bill that funds embryonic stem cell research.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/111130

[video=youtube;XXh1xQmiGlQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXh1xQmiGlQ[/video]

Seems like lately everyone on this Forum defending the Republican policies makes a disclaimer about not being Republican. If it quacks like a duck, it is usually a duck. And, your idea of doing away with welfare because some may be taking advantage of is so typically Republican. The hell with the ones that really need it, if someone is abusing it we'll just do away with it and those that really need it can go to hell.

(*)(*)(*)(*), that's so generous of you.

That's pure Republican rhetoric spouted by Limbaugh and parroted by the sheeple. What proof do you have of that? Clinton made reforms to the Welfare system that precludes people from staying on too long and other requirements from applicants. Show me some proof, you that claim that a sucker is one who doesn't make qualifications, and here you are, spouting off and giving no backup material. I guess we're supposed to take your conservative word for it?

You, seem to be lacking much information. Continue to rely on Faux News and Limbaugh so you can continue to be one of the less-informed. And your moniker is a joke, you were never a lib, you sound like an extreme right-winger.

You should feel sad for yourself. You've been suckered into believing that the rich's wealth is going to trickle down to you. How's that working for you?

So, instead of making insults, why don't you put your proof where your mouth is and refute what I've said.

 

And getting food stamps isn't so easy either, I have to leave this forum for months at a time to study the ins and outs of the system and fill out many papers filled with unneccessary government Bureaucracy to get my welfare redetermined which is unfair.

If the government wanted more people on welfare, it wouldn't cave into demands by republicans to make it so hard for the poor man to get on the rolls because of fraud that is mostly not there.

 

You sound so ignorant and child-like. You support a party that likes to bring everybody down to the lowest common denominator, rather than strive to bring everyone up to a higher level. Your party likes to demonize and punish success. Of course, nobody has ever gotten to where they are by themselves, right? Uncle Sam was there to hold their hand. That's what your ignorant leader believes anyway.

 

The Congress establishes the criteria for this federal program so we would assume that the Congress wants those that are eligible to benefit from it. Wouldn't that be a good baseline assumption?

The fact that perhaps millions of individuals do meet the criteria for the program but are not receiving the benefits would be a major problem for the executive branch as it would not be fulfilling the mandates of Congress which are established by law. Should the executive branch simply ignore that which Congress has mandated or should it make every effort to comply with the "legislated" desires of the Congress?

Personally I believe that the President should be trying to enroll all of those that meet the criteria established by Congress because that's his job. If we don't like what Congress has authorized then we need to blame the Congress and not the President.

 

"Spreading the wealth" isn't about making sure everyone makes equal money. There is still classes. There are still super poor and super rich. But the mobility between them is closer.

Spreading the wealth isn't about giving people what they don't deserve.

It's about making sure people don't starve. Or go bankrupt from health bills. Or lose their homes because of poor decisions on the banks part.

It's about making sure people have work. And if they don't have work it's about making sure people can get the training needed to find work. It's about keeping our economy oiled and maintained. It's about the good of our nation's economy over the good of the pocket books of the super rich.

 

Oh, please, like you sound so (*)(*)(*)(*) smart.

And you support a party that caters to the rich and doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the poor and needy. And to make it worse, most of your party members claim they are Christian. I guess they worship a different Christ. And when has your party ever strived to bring anyone to a higher level? All they want to do is take the uber wealthy to a higher level, they don't care about you.

That's your spin and excuse because we feel that the wealthy should pay their fair share. You've been brainwashed into thinking they are going to let some of their money trickle down to you - how's that working for you? Has any of it trickled down yet?

Oh sure, many have made it without teachers to teach them, public education (that we all paid for), and many have had successful businesses but never used public roads or needed police protection. They were born geniuses, and were able to fly over and above the roads, and they were like ninja's, they didn't ever need police protection.

Well, unless you are Mitt Romney who could afford to pay for his teachers and education, you relied on Uncle Sam whether you want to admit it or not. And even Mitt Romney has availed himself of many of the benefits of government, like tax cuts and shelters and being allowed to store his money in other countries instead of helping his country that he loves so much.

And your bright and intelligent leaders tell you that you don't need government - they are going to privatize everything so they can sock it to you and you'll have no recourse. Now that's really smart! Bwahahahaha!

 

The libs just like to suck the life out of the private sector. Conservatives like to see the private sector have the best chance of succeeding with the least amount of government intereference. If you want to start bringing religion into this discussion, then start a new thread.

The wealthy are paying their fair share. They pay more than you, I, and most of America combined. What is fair if they are not paying it? Tell us? Businesses do better with more capital and less government intrusion. This way, they can spend money to expand and hire more people, without the uncertainty of unknown government regulation. That's what trickle down is all about. Open your eyes.

Businesses thrive in spite of government. Most would do just fine without it. You believe people thrive only because of government. How backwards. Don't forget, it is The People that enabled this government of ours. It works for us, not the other way around. Most businesses in this country were built from the ground up by hard working people, not Uncle Sam.

 

I've only retained a portion of this post to make a comment. I'm a laizze faire libertarian and there is a fundamental problem with the "Republican" economic philosophy as supported by Mitt Romney and others.

They support the belief that if enterprise is doing well that this translates into the Americans in general doing well and that isn't the case. Just because an enterprise is doing well and the owners are doing well that doesn't mean that the workers are doing well. That's what went wrong under Reagan and why his "trickle down economics" didn't work. The wealthy owners of enterprise (such as Mitt Romney with Bain Capital) made a lot of money but often this is accomplished by laying off workers, out-sourcing labor to foreign countries, or even bankrupting the company. The "owners" can profit from all of those actions and that is what the Republicans generally support.

The Republican focus is on the wealthy making money and not the average American making money. Yes, they want the wealthy to invest in enterprise because it does mean more enterprise which benefits the wealthy that own the enterprise.

 

I'm not sure if I agree with you. Of course there are examples of greed in the corporate world. This is not the norm. Most of America was built by smaller businesses that employ most Americans. If they do well, they can expand, thrive and employ more people.

It's a good thing then that I am a Conservative. Democrats are not for capitalism as it should be, private property rights, etc. They are for wealth distribution and entitlements. Republicans have fallen off the train. I am not sure what the hell they are doing.

 

Brainwashing at its best. Ha,ha, conservatives like to see the private sector have the best chance of succeeding with the least amount of government interference, why conservatives in some red states have legislated vaginal ultra-sounds for women that are going to abort? Bwahahaha! You sound funnier every time you post.

Again, the brainwashing has been very effective, here. So, you think the 15% that Romney (with his billions)paid, is fair share when some middle-class people are paying 35%?

In fact, tons of data—including data cited in the AP article itself—confirm the compelling need for a Buffett rule because large numbers of super-rich individuals are indeed paying lower taxes than middle-class families. Consider:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/millionaire_tax_rates.html

No, they don't. The richest 1% only pay 40% of the income tax revenue, the rest of us pay 60%.

How about paying the same rate, which still would not be fair since in the US we have a progressive tax, which means, the more you make, the higher rate you should pay.
But, Republicans give them tax cuts and tax shelters. Why so many of you (Republicans) think it is fair could only be attributed to being brainwashed.

I just did. ^^^^^^^^^

You're the one that needs to open your eyes. Of course business would make more money if they could do as they please. But, they wouldn't have the customer's interest at heart.

Well of course they would, but at the cost to the consumer. How would you like it if credit companies could charge whatever interest they wanted, or would be able to hike up your interest on your account whenever they pleased. Or, how would you like your bottled water not be approved by FDA and a company could just bottle water from a creek and sell it to you? How about a company not allowed to dump their waste into a local river and pollute it? These companies would save a lot of money and make a lot of money, but it would be at your expense, and that is what you are saying that you don't care, you don't want the government involved.

I never said that, so you are making (*)(*)(*)(*) up. I believe that companies left to their own will do whatever it takes to increase their profit and they will care little about the consumer. The government is there to protect us, the consumer, against greedy companies. Not all companies are that way, but I would say that most would ignore rules that protect us if they could to save a few bucks.

Oh, geez, I'm so glad you told me that. Don't know what I would do without your intelligent input.

Bingo! There, you said it, but all your comments have been that we don't need it. How can it work for us if we don't need it and get rid of it? Duh!

And, nobody is saying they are not. But most businesses are interested in making profits. Having to adhere to rules that protect the citizens costs money and they would rather not have them, and you are supporting that idea. How ignorant is that?

 

Rich folks still pay more in taxes than you can dream of paying. If you have a problem with legal tax breaks, some of which you certainly take yourself, then you will have to work on changing our more than 10,000 pages of tax code.

So 1% pays 40%, and 99% pays 60%. Is that not fair to you? Do you want the 1% paying 99%?

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Taxes in 2009. What is fair again?

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

This is why I support getting rid of our tax code, most of the IRS, and implementing a flat tax. Get rid of all deductions.

Customer service is key. Do a good job, customers will stay, and more will come. Most businesses have the customer in mind.

I never said that I was for anarchy, just limited government. Since you mentioned the FDA, I will chime in about them. They have done some good things, but also have made bad decisions, and they certainly do not have the general public's best interests in mind. They are just a big bureaocracy that accepts cash.

Who protects us from big, greedy government?

Like I said, I am not for anarchy. "Working for us" does not mean regulate and control the hell out of us. It means, perform your basic functions as outlined in the Constitution, and get the hell out of the way.

As ignorant as your statement. Once again, you are under the false assumption that what the government does is to protect you.