President Obama signs $8.7 billion food stamp cut into law

originally posted by: macman
The system is designed now to take from me to give to others.

If that's how you want to view it so be it, but that wasn't the question you asked. You asked why people can double or triple dip and the reason is that each program has it's own jurisdiction and factors costs independently. The people on disability or welfare who get their $700/month have that $700 calculated as the cost of fuel, rent, electricity, water, and so on. SNAP is calculated for food benefits, WIC is for the cost of an infants food or other necessities.

originally posted by: Aazadan
At what point was it okay to hijack the term "society" and bastardize it into meaning I have to provide for others??? Just wondering.
So, this whole crime thing. Yeah......I am not going to be threatened by others. This BS line of if there will be crime everywhere if the Govt doesn't give out the free stuff is just that....BS. Unless you truly believe that the poor will turn into criminalistic animals. But, that is probably no truer statement for you.

I say bring it on. Someone tries to rob me.....I have something for them.

Where was it hijacked? The Constitution itself says the role of government is to provide for general welfare which has to do with national defence, law enforcement, and quality of life issues. People going hungry results in issues with those second and third points. And yes I do believe that a population full of starving people will result in rebellion and widespread crime because it has happened all over the world throughout history.

If you have something for the person robbing you, good luck. The robber gets the element of surprise and the first shot. Maybe you'll get the first one but sooner or later someone will get you. Is that really the type of society you want to live in as an alternative to what amounts to less than a 0.5% tax rate?

Ohhh how i love the dramatic styles of the Progressive. Going from me saying criminals being shot in the course of doing criminal activities to me saying to "execute" someone. Do you embellish the truth as often in real life, as you do here?

Dramatic? You're the one whose virtually getting off on the idea of getting the chance to legally kill people when they inevitably come for you. And yes you're advocating the execution of criminals. You said you would rather them be dead than jail them.

Did you know that during the Great Depression people would routinely commit minor crimes in order to get in prison so they would have food and shelter?

Also, I'm not a progressive. I'm more or less center with a very slight right slant. If that sounds far left to you maybe you should reevaluate your own viewpoints. Being to the extreme of any position has never done an individual or society any good.

Other then you...who said anything about executing the poor?

Your solution is to either kill them when they try to survive or to make them silently starve to death. Out of sight out of mind right?

So again, I MUST reduce my lifestyle, and not EARN as much to stop the Govt from taking more from me...
May I suggest life in Cuba for you??
Why is it that every Progressive pushes to make America like every other 2nd world crap hole, all in the name of "fairness"?
If that is what you want, I will gladly reach into my wallet, the same one that is supplied by MY hard work, and purchase you a one way ticket to what ever Progressive/Socialist utopia of your choosing.

You don't get it both ways. There are not enough jobs to keep the population employed anymore. Either those who don't have a job available for them need to be supported, or those with jobs need to start dividing up the work. You can't have both 1/3 of the working popuation unable to find work because the jobs don't exist, and tell those people they're supposed to rot or starve to death. That's just not how things work in a society.

And yet again and blatant lie.
Where have I stated I don't want to open up employment??
Is lying a normal for you?

The above quote. Specifically "So again, I MUST reduce my lifestyle, and not EARN as much".

Well, that is obvious.
In any other instance in life, it is theft. But since the Govt does it, under the fictitious guise of "helping" others, you don't see it as such.

Funny, as if I reached into your wallet, took 30% of you money, and gave it to someone else, I would be arrested.

I have an actual (as in effective) tax rate of 82%. 25% income tax, 50% disability tax, and 7% sales tax (these taxes are all additive). I would love to only have a 30% tax rate. Despite that I still don't see taxes as theft. I see them as an opportunity to give back to my country. I see them as a chance to help out the other people I share a city, state, and country with. If you don't see them that way, that's not my problem but taxes aren't evil.

So, I need to leave a country that was designed for the individual, not for a Progressive Collective..

The sad truth....is even if I did go to a private island, you and other Progressives would slime your way there and force me to capitulate to YOUR way of life.

That is what you and other do.

Well, you clearly want nothing to do with what the government or the country stands for. So why not follow your own advice and get a plane ticket somewhere else? On a private island you can practice all the social darwinism you want and you won't be beholden to any central government.

a reply to: jacobe001

And what is your point??? People have to work for someone. Big deal.


Or.....they can stop the excuses and work for themselves.

Even in the industrial park that my shop is at, there are tons of people that have their own business.

Food trucks, mechanics, machinists, artists......You and other needs to stop making excuses for each other and just go out and make something of your life.

Or don't and continue to live off of others via welfare......where their life is either a miserable torment of waste and despair as pitched by you and others, or live a life where they purchase beer with cash and baby stuff with their SNAP card as witnessed by everyone else.

originally posted by: Aazadan


If that's how you want to view it so be it, but that wasn't the question you asked. You asked why people can double or triple dip and the reason is that each program has it's own jurisdiction and factors costs independently. The people on disability or welfare who get their $700/month have that $700 calculated as the cost of fuel, rent, electricity, water, and so on. SNAP is calculated for food benefits, WIC is for the cost of an infants food or other necessities.

Nothing like take take and take some more from the Govt funded via tax payer.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Where was it hijacked? The Constitution itself says the role of government is to provide for general welfare which has to do with national defence, law enforcement, and quality of life issues. People going hungry results in issues with those second and third points. And yes I do believe that a population full of starving people will result in rebellion and widespread crime because it has happened all over the world throughout history.

Please show me where welfare was instituted during the construction of the US during or just after the Constitution was created and ratified.
No, it does not mean to provide welfare to people. Again, hijacking terms...Alinsky would be proud.
And being beholden to people threatening criminal activity unless they get their Govt freebies is okay???

originally posted by: Aazadan
If you have something for the person robbing you, good luck. The robber gets the element of surprise and the first shot. Maybe you'll get the first one but sooner or later someone will get you. Is that really the type of society you want to live in as an alternative to what amounts to less than a 0.5% tax rate?

So, theft by the Govt or by a person is the 2 choices you offer.
I would have no problem shooting someone trying to rob myself or my family.
Not once of f%ck given. Not one tear shed.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Dramatic? You're the one whose virtually getting off on the idea of getting the chance to legally kill people when they inevitably come for you. And yes you're advocating the execution of criminals. You said you would rather them be dead than jail them.

I said this???? Care to provide the quote of that?? Or any of that??
You have brought the same tired old BS from the argument against "Stand your ground " laws into this, and tried to enact the same dramatic style.
Sure sure then. sure sure.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Did you know that during the Great Depression people would routinely commit minor crimes in order to get in prison so they would have food and shelter?

Umm okay. Thanks for sharing.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Also, I'm not a progressive. I'm more or less center with a very slight right slant. If that sounds far left to you maybe you should reevaluate your own viewpoints. Being to the extreme of any position has never done an individual or society any good.

Quacking and walking like a duck will have you seen and labeled as one.



[

originally posted by: Aazadan

Your solution is to either kill them when they try to survive or to make them silently starve to death. Out of sight out of mind right?

Care to provide the quote where I stated this?

originally posted by: Aazadan
You don't get it both ways. There are not enough jobs to keep the population employed anymore. Either those who don't have a job available for them need to be supported, or those with jobs need to start dividing up the work. You can't have both 1/3 of the working popuation unable to find work because the jobs don't exist, and tell those people they're supposed to rot or starve to death. That's just not how things work in a society.

There are plenty of jobs out there.

originally posted by: Aazadan

The above quote. Specifically "So again, I MUST reduce my lifestyle, and not EARN as much".

Yes, I, not you or anyone else, have worked to earn MY living and wage. I am the person to benefit from this. Not you or anyone else.
Theft is okay, so long as the Govt does it.

originally posted by: Aazadan

I have an actual (as in effective) tax rate of 82%. 25% income tax, 50% disability tax, and 7% sales tax (these taxes are all additive). I would love to only have a 30% tax rate. Despite that I still don't see taxes as theft. I see them as an opportunity to give back to my country. I see them as a chance to help out the other people I share a city, state, and country with. If you don't see them that way, that's not my problem but taxes aren't evil.

So, you worked for say $100, but are forced to allow the Govt to remove 82% and you are okay with this??
I don't believe it. But, I guess if you are going to lie, lie big.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Well, you clearly want nothing to do with what the government or the country stands for. So why not follow your own advice and get a plane ticket somewhere else? On a private island you can practice all the social darwinism you want and you won't be beholden to any central government.

The Govt and country was created for the individual. Not for the collective.

Why do I need to leave a country, that was created in a way, when it is YOU and other like YOU pushing to change it.

Why not move to the beloved countries you and other Progressives hold high as examples?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: jacobe001

And what is your point???

My point in the end is that as a concerned citizen, we need to reign in Corporate and Banking corruption over our government which is the cause of our problems. I see many give lip service to the idea but the moment any protests or group movements start they are demonized by the corporate cheerleaders.

originally posted by: macman

The Govt and country was created for the individual. Not for the collective.

Is it individualism or collectivism when a bunch of Wall Street Bankers from different Banks join together to lobby government?
Is is individualism or collectivism when a bunch of corporate board room members band together to lobby government?
Is is individualism or collectivism when a bunch of defense contractors band together to lobby government?

Would you join a protest again them?

You want individualism for those at the bottom and collectivism for those at the top?
It is ok when Wealthy and Powerful people congregate together to influence government but it is not ok if the little people congregate together via protests to do it?

What would you propose to put a stop to it?

a reply to: jacobe001

The Govt is the issue. The Corrupt Govt is the issue.

a reply to: jacobe001

What you bemoan is the willful actions of individuals. Not forced actions by a Govt that was created to protect the individual.

Just as people have the right to come together and form OWS, they too have the right to form a Corp.


DO you understand the difference or do I need to explain it in some other terms.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: jacobe001

What you bemoan is the willful actions of individuals. Not forced actions by a Govt that was created to protect the individual.

Just as people have the right to come together and form OWS, they too have the right to form a Corp.


DO you understand the difference or do I need to explain it in some other terms.

Well, I somewhat agree with you but you seem to miss the point that the government is a mouthpiece for the corporations and banks and do indeed use it collectively to force their agendas on the population.

Obamacare for example was a gift to the Healthcare and Insurance Lobbyists. They are at the top of the list when it comes to lobbying. It was not the 99% that have no political or monetary influence over our government. Big Pharma and Healthcare do not want to take a paycut so they payed off politicians to steal from me. That is Theft.

The same goes for "Free Trade" Pacts, Illegal Aliens, Bank Bailouts, Transpacific Partnership, Quantitative Easing and so on.
This all benefits the top 1% and does nothing for the rest of American's except steal their tax dollars for these leeches.

I agree with you that the government is the problem. It is just you are not taking the next step and saying who they are working for?
It is not the 99%.

a reply to: macman

That is already covered under Insuring Domestics Tranquility, Providing for the Common Defense, and Securing the Blessing Liberties for Ourselves and our Posterity part of the Constitution.

You are familiar with the US Constitution, correct?

Anyone with a moral backbone agrees that helping feeding the needy falls under the category of Promoting the General Welfare.

Food stamps is the result of a jobless broken society. Obama's house of cards magic trick. Cuts food stamps 8.7 billion, then drops billions on the middle East and gives everyone in the senate raises. The government isn't about fixing the economy anymore. It's turned into a millionaires club of how rich I can get and how many throats I have to cut. I promise you it won't be long till this house of cards goes up in flames.

originally posted by: macman


If I built up a company, I too would work into a safety net in the event it failed. I built the company.

If you built the business from the ground up, then sure I can see that.
But many of the Corporations where I see CEO's bailing out with Golden Parachutes did not start the company. It was already in existence for years and through their incompetence or intent, burned it to the ground so they and their cronies could make out like bandits.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ArchPlayer

So now we are on the whole paper money thing.

Is that all that you have?

No, I was really more focused on your working for the enemy. But since you are Jrod are engaged in battle I see you a bit touchy.

originally posted by: macman
Nothing like take take and take some more from the Govt funded via tax payer.

Yep, take take take. And the amount that gets taken still doesn't even amount to enough to be above the poverty line. Those people are really living it up.

Please show me where welfare was instituted during the construction of the US during or just after the Constitution was created and ratified.
No, it does not mean to provide welfare to people. Again, hijacking terms...Alinsky would be proud.
And being beholden to people threatening criminal activity unless they get their Govt freebies is okay???

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As I said before, general Welfare in this case is related to the idea of quality of life issues and law enforcement. Quality of life would be related to the idea that it's governments responsibility to extend the lifespan of the citizenry as long as possible and to make sure people have the ability to have a relatively comfortable life. Law enforcement is the idea that government seeks to create social policies that minimize crime, and that criminal actions that do happen get punished.

It has nothing to do with threatening criminal activity. It's survival instinct. If people can't afford food and shelter what do you think is going to happen?

Lets put this another way. I assume you have some knowledge of Maslow's Hierarch of Needs? If you don't google it, it's a pretty simply concept. Many studies have been done over the years and have shown that the higher a person is on that hierarchy the less likely they are to commit criminal acts. When you have someone at the bottom who can't afford food or shelter they're VERY likely to be a criminal, at the very bottom of the pyramid criminal behavior reaches a near 100%.

Maybe you'll respond to a purely financial argument. Depending on the state it costs between $30,000 to $50,000 per year to put a criminal in jail. The average jail sentence for low level theft is about 18 months. That means that an individual is costing the state between $45,000 and $75,000 because they're too poor to support themselves. Lets average it and call it $60,000. SNAP benefits on the other hand for that same individual only run about $130 per month give or take a few by state. Over 18 months that only amounts to $2,340. Meaning actually feeding the person so that they don't have to resort to criminal actions that put them in jail saves $57,660 over those 18 months or $38,440 per year. This means that it's cheaper to pay for SNAP than to pay for the outcome of not having SNAP.

So, theft by the Govt or by a person is the 2 choices you offer.
I would have no problem shooting someone trying to rob myself or my family.
Not once of f%ck given. Not one tear shed.

Maybe you don't. Should everyone have to make that choice? Should we want to live in a society where being armed, and having the willpower to follow through with murdering someone in self defense is a reality we must all accept?

That aside, taxes aren't theft that money was never yours to begin with. It's not yours until it's in your hand and the government says it's yours. You may not like that but government is the authority figure here, they get to dictate what is and isn't yours. That's why they also get to use laws like eminent domain where they can simply take your property. A proper government uses this authority sparingly but it's always there.

I said this???? Care to provide the quote of that?? Or any of that??
You have brought the same tired old BS from the argument against "Stand your ground " laws into this, and tried to enact the same dramatic style.
Sure sure then. sure sure.

Just look one quote up. You state right there that you'll kill someone without a second thought.

Quacking and walking like a duck will have you seen and labeled as one.

Accepting a few leftist points isn't called embracing that side, it's called not being an extremist. I embrace a few conservative points too (as well as a few not supported by either side). Those aren't the topic here though.

There are plenty of jobs out there.

That's why we have a real unemployment rate of near 33%? Most of the jobs we do have that are available also happen to be unskilled service sector positions. Not things people can actually do for a career.

Yes, I, not you or anyone else, have worked to earn MY living and wage. I am the person to benefit from this. Not you or anyone else.
Theft is okay, so long as the Govt does it.

Actually, your living and your wage comes from your employer. Your employers business exists only because there's a customer base that allow it to exist, those customers build and maintain the business. You are not very relevant to the situation, you could be replaced with anyone else with the proper skillset and nothing would change except you would be out of a job and someone else wouldn't.

So, you worked for say $100, but are forced to allow the Govt to remove 82% and you are okay with this??
I don't believe it. But, I guess if you are going to lie, lie big.

Sorry, long day it's actually 77%. I get disability, one of the requirements of that is that I pay back $1 for every $2 I earn pre-tax. Then I pay the various city/state/federal income taxes. That creates an effective tax rate of 75%. Throw in an average 7% sales tax on the remaining 25% and it comes to 77%. That's simply the economics of the situation, being ok with it or not doesn't really factor in. As I said before, it's not really yours until it's cash in hand.

The Govt and country was created for the individual. Not for the collective.
Why do I need to leave a country, that was created in a way, when it is YOU and other like YOU pushing to change it.
Why not move to the beloved countries you and other Progressives hold high as examples?

The government and the country were created as an escape from tyranny and focused on the idea of liberty. Taxes and welfare programs are not the antithesis to this idea. Infact it has been shown otherwise that when people have some sort of safety net to meet their basic needs met they're better able to pursue an education and become more productive and autonomous.

originally posted by: ArchPlayer


Even those who use to go to the thrift can't afford it anymore. Their prices are just as high as going to Marshalls or TJ Maxx. Just because you made it, and I'm willing to bet you were born back in the day, doesn't mean it is as simple or logical now. Count yourself fortunate to grow up in an era where saving was still able.

Dude, poor is poor. it doesn't matter WHEN it was, if you can't afford something, you can't afford it. Time is irrelevant.

I'm still not well off, I struggle everyday, But the difference is, I'm PROUD to struggle. I just took the plunge and sank all of my savings into starting my own business. So, I'll be struggling for a while, probably even worse, but I am trying to better myself. THAT is my whole point.

originally posted by: poncho1982
Dude, poor is poor. it doesn't matter WHEN it was, if you can't afford something, you can't afford it. Time is irrelevant.

I'm still not well off, I struggle everyday, But the difference is, I'm PROUD to struggle. I just took the plunge and sank all of my savings into starting my own business. So, I'll be struggling for a while, probably even worse, but I am trying to better myself. THAT is my whole point.

It's commendable that you did that but I think there's some disconnect here. You were well off enough to have savings in the first place.

a reply to: jacobe001

Every part of this all benefits corporations.

So what's the GD point ?

ALL social programs BENEFIT 'corporations'.

State mandated CORPORATE fascism.

Rob from the haves, give to the have nots all so they can BUY MORE STUFF.

originally posted by: neo96


State mandated CORPORATE fascism.

Rob from the haves, give to the have nots all so they can BUY MORE STUFF.

I agree there. But not all Corporations.

Just the chosen ones with the most bucks to be part of the wish to fulfill their Globalist Utopia.
They cannot and will never be able to control the world through one government.
But they are succeeding at doing it with Multinational Corporations and Central Banks backed by a tax payer funded Globalist Military Industrial Complex.

Tax Incentives to Offshore and Outsource, No tariff protections, Global Trade Pacts all point it to being intentional to get those corporations to other countries. That is the top .5% doing this, not the "Liberals and Republicans" consisting of the bottom 99.5%

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
honestly you hit it on the head, aside from the disinformation, this really is squared right in the faces of the elderly, if anything what should be done is to counter fraud and misuse of the entitlements, weeding that out might make up for across the board cuts actually and save the people who are elderly and rely heavily on this.

a reply to: jacobe001

The Govt is there to serve itself. It is there to grow, gain more control and take more.

originally posted by: jrod


That is already covered under Insuring Domestics Tranquility, Providing for the Common Defense, and Securing the Blessing Liberties for Ourselves and our Posterity part of the Constitution.

And where does it state, that to ensure this magical redefining of "General Welfare" means to tax some to give to others?
And again, since the framers not only constructed the base of the country and Govt, they also created the laws associated with these, where are the laws encompassing Govt based welfare programs?

originally posted by: jrod
You are familiar with the US Constitution, correct?

Yes, the actual Constitution. Not the
living breathing document" crap promoted by many here.

originally posted by: jrod
Anyone with a moral backbone agrees that helping feeding the needy falls under the category of Promoting the General Welfare.

I love these kind of statements. Might as well declare "It's for the children".
No, no it does not.

Seeing that during the time of the creation of the Govt, that Churches and Communities worked to take care of people in this way, and that the framers immediately afterwards did not have any groundwork for such BS, blows this out of the water.