Republicans can’t stop comparing food stamp recipients to wild animals on Facebook

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: mikeone718
That's pretty messed up but did crack me up.

If you teach a man to fish...

Yeah right, peoples misfortune is just hilarious!!!

Anyway..... best way to teach a man to fish, is by actually forcing corporations & businesses to pay people a livable wage!

46 million is nearly 20% of the adult US population. Its the corporations that are the real freeloaders in all of this. They don't even pay there hardest working employee's enough to feed themselves, then just expect the tax payer to pay out, just so there employee's don't starve.

Its called corporate welfare.

Haha, was this supposed to be a coherent thought? I mean you think the best way to teach a man to fish is to have the guy he fishes for give him more fish? Do you see the problem here?

They don't even pay there hardest working employee's enough to feed themselves...

Minimum wage is 7.25/hr. One big mac meal costs 6.50. So for three hours of work per day they could eat three meals a day. right? And that's not even feeding yourself rice and beans, that's eating fast food for every meal, which is pretty damn expensive. Stop with the hyperbole. It's warping our country.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Gryphon66

Can you define The "right wing left wing thing, like I say, I wasn't born in US main land and didn't go to school and college here I was born and raise in PR still an American born.

See people like to use stereotypes when it comes to their views of behavior toward politics, religion and so on, I don't like that because most of often shows that if you don't fall in the preconceptions of views (an inherited trait of what family values teach the very young) of a particular person you are not part of that club, it encourage division.

So I am I, no like you, human like you but with a mind of my own.

Lord, LOL. Tradionally, the right/left split politically means that right wingers prefer authoritarianism and/or conservatism and left wingers prefer egalitarianism (equality and power in the hands of the people) and/or liberalism.

Right wingers promote traditional solutions and power structures: obey the church, the laws, respect authority, what have you. Historically in the US, the right wing is more nationalistic...

Left wingers ... traditionally tolerated power structures in order to provide for social safety nets, equity for all citizens, etc.

In the last couple of decades, however, these positions have become muddled, as both sides have struggled to capture the growing "libertarian" movement, which of course, depending on who you talk to, is primarily focused on all government being unnecessary if not "bad" and favor dismantling government structures, including aid to the people.

I'd say (my opinion only) that today, both those on the right and left are facing cultural evolution. The right is trying to figure out how to sustain the power of traditional institutions at the same time they're trying to tear them down (thus a stronger focus on "the church" than on the government as the source of "order and structure" and the left is faced with advocating for greater government controls in order to preserve basic services to people who need them, protect the environment, etc.

As many times in "American politics" ... continued evolution and growth brings a confrontation with opposite ideas.

Easy example ... 50 years ago, it would have been the lefties who were criticising and fighting "against" the government (think hippies) and the righties who were claiming that anyone opposed to government power was "unamerican."

TL;DR: Things Change.

a reply to: wantsome

I realize that you're angry about what has happened to you.

LIttle Caesars, at least here in Georgia is known as really cheap food. Large pizzas are about $5 each.

Think about what comes on a pizza ... bread, meat, veggies.

Consider that the lady you saw may not just be feeding herself, but also, kids.

Good luck in finding a solution to your problems.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I'd ask if you are serious, but I know the answer.

Let's use your metaphor and take it another step. The guy who fishes for the fish company, how long do you think he can be a successful, profitable, fisherman if the fish company takes all his catch and gives him heads, tails and fish-guts as his "wage"?

He's going to become less and less effective, his health will decline, and eventually, he will be unable to fish.

Of course, the fish company knows that there are ALWAYS more fisherman, so what do they care? But, when all the fisherman in the village are either starving or dead, tell me, who is going to buy the fish from the fish company?

This is called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

As to the rest of your ... logic ... show us how after eating at the hamburger stand three times day, they're supposed to pay for a car (or bus fare), a home, utilities, insurance, clothing, etc. ... you know, what most of us refer to as "the basics"?

Enthrall us with your acumen!

a reply to: Gryphon66
or they are living in places that were wired for one family and been remodified to house more...

doesn't change the fact that the rent for them is higher and therefore it makes no sense to take food stamps benefits away from them.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66
or they are living in places that were wired for one family and been remodified to house more...

doesn't change the fact that the rent for them is higher and therefore it makes no sense to take food stamps benefits away from them.

Er, I was trying to answer your question. The reason that rents include utilities in low-cost housing is exactly what I mentioned. I'm certainly not in favor of "taking food stamps" any from anyone. Look to the Republicans in the Congress (and their supporters in this thread) for that particular heartlessness.

I'm not sure about your "living in a place wired for one family" ... a) that's a small portion of the population at best and b) what does that matter in terms of rents? and c) what does your fault-finding have to do with taking basic services away from people?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Spider879

Republican politicians are just as stupid selfish slobs as all democrat politicians. There are just as many republican constituents on food stamps as liberal lovers of government aid.

Overall, a Pew Research Center survey conducted late last year found that about one-in-five Americans (18%) has participated in the food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. About a quarter (26%) lives in a household with a current or former food stamp recipient.

Of these, about one-in-five (22%) of Democrats say they had received food stamps compared with 10% of Republicans. About 17% of political independents say they have received food stamps.

The share of food stamp beneficiaries swells even further when respondents are asked if someone else living in their household had ever received food stamps. According to the survey, about three in ten Democrats (31%) and about half as many Republicans (17%) say they or someone in their household has benefited from the food stamp program.

Source

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowedEven if the numbers are not even, it shows what morons we have fighting against us, and every one of them almost contributes to doing something against America and it's freedoms for all people.
I think every single food stamp recipient should spend their whole month allotment on NY steak and lobster tails, then government could say: "Hey look, our constituents are trying to be just like us living high on the hog at their expense" The people will never catch up to them.

So, to you, the government should be in the business of buying steak and lobster for every citizen that can't afford to buy a gallon of milk, yet none for those that can't afford steak and lobster, but can afford their own milk?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowedOne day government is going to use violent reprisal against people who have received any kind of so called free benefit if they don't also comply with the loss of freedoms for getting those benefits. It isn't that far away.

Perhaps they can start with you.

Harte

a reply to: Gryphon66
this little part of the discussion was addressing the post where the gov't decided to cut food stamps for those who didn't have a gas bill in their name. which I think is a rediculous idea, mainly because there are many people who have their utilities included in their rent. I never asked why they were, but well your answer kind of seemed to me to say it was because the people renting them were renting them because they didn't have bank accounts or couldn't convince the gas company to turn it on. which isn't actually true, most budget conscious people are gonna do their apt hunting hoping to get the most bang for their buck, they're gonna look at the neighborhood, and well, the condition of the apt. although some might have the problems you speak of, many don't.
as far as the landlords who chose to include the rent in their rents, I imagine it depends highly on what makes sense for the type of building they have. Where I am at there are alot of what was large single family houses that have been turned into duplexes and well it makes more sense for the landlord to include the utilities in the rent.
another thing, I am gonna have to go back and see if the original post said gas bill or another utility because well, personally I have had a gas bill in a few decades!! heating oil, yes, electric, yes, gas, nope!!!

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I know the Dems do very little in the way of tackling the problem, but the Reps especially the leadership and what they are saying about the poor in a broad brush is what's troubling .

Andre Bauer, then South Carolina’s lieutenant governor, compared food stamp recipients to stray animals in 2010 and suggested cutting their benefits so they would be less likely to “breed.”
www.rawstory.com...

This is how one speak about vermin.

Do you have a suggestion for breaking the cycle of dependancy these programs have created?
Or, do you assert that there is no such cycle?

Do you think that some "living wage" legislation will do the trick?

Suppose minimum wage was increased to $20.00 an hour.

What do you then do for the skilled employees already making $20.00 an hour?

Do you think an average employee can accomplish the same work as, say, a tool and die maker with 20 years of experience in machining metal?

Harte

a reply to: dawnstar
the heat and eat program -
frac.org...

if anyone's interested...
I've tried to read it but well have other things on my mind at the moments. but I think maybe the poster may have been a little confused about how it worked.

a reply to: dawnstar

Right. Beg pardon. Sometimes it's difficult to understand exactly what you're referring to in your posts.

To clarify though, it is certainly true that the concept behind combining rent with utilities is due to the factors I mentioned.

I'm not sure why that's a sticking point for you. You're assuming a lot in referring to "budget conscious people" not to put too fine an edge on it, and, though this is a relatively minor point in this discussion, you're going on your knowledge of the situation which is quite simply "off." Notice that you're making suppositions, talking about what you "imagine" to be true, etc.

I work in the field of real estate, and I have worked with lower-income folks for nearly 20 years. Sadly, I'm very familiar with the incredible hurdles some of these folks face, economically.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a lot of those food stamp recipients are working, and well they aren't getting full benefits, the benefits might be as low as $20-$30 dollars. it's quite possible that they pay more in taxes that they are getting back. so one could say that they are just reclaiming some of the money that the government took so they could continue eating and working so that the gov't can get their money next year.

by the way here's the eligibility numbers for food stamps.

www.fns.usda.gov...

Nobody eligible for SNAP is paying any Federal Income Tax, which is the source of SNAP funding.

Maximum gross income is around 2500 per month for a family of four, according to your own source.

Anyone at that income level not only pays nothing in, they get several thousand dollars paid to them from the government in their tax returns due to the EIT credit.

Harte

originally posted by: BomSquad
a reply to: kaylaluv

In many local clinics birth control is freely available. It may not always be in the form you would like (condoms versus the pill or what have you) but it is available and free.

Otherwise, a little self control can go a long way as well...

Unless one becomes pregnant through an act of rape, there is a choice on whether or not to engage in activity that can result in a child. This isn't magic. If you have sex without birth control, there is a chance of becoming pregnant. Sometimes you wonder if people understand how reproduction works...

Add in the fact that you get more benefits with more children and what would anyone expect?

Harte

originally posted by: The Vagabond
If you don't feed wild animals they just kill each other to survive. The Republicans just think it should be the same for the poor. Is that really so stupid? Or is it just evil?

Excellent point. It's really a combo of stupid evil ignorance.

a reply to: Harte

Perhaps the take-away from the poll you cited is that Republicans don't tell the truth on surveys?

The "cycle of dependency" was broken in August 1996, when the Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). How is it that so many right-wingers are unaware of the reality of this fact? This was touted as a grand success of the "Republican Contract with America" as well as a win for States Rights.

I personally don't mind giving a few pennies to programs like SNAP as much as I resent giving a few dimes to buy bombs to drop on women and children in foreign lands or to subsidize the salaries of corporate fat cats making millions already ... but hey, that's just me.

See above for more information on the current realities of social safety net programs rather than merely parroting the old Reagan-era "welfare queen" nonsense.

originally posted by: BomSquad
A purely anecdotal observation I made about someone using food stamps:

I was at a convenience store, which, as you know, is one of the more expensive places to buy anything. There was a woman in front of me buying a monster energy drink and candy bars with food stamps. All I could think at the time was that if this is what she is spending her food stamps on, it is no wonder she is on food stamps.

Note:

Strip clubs: Last year, the New York Post reported that FOIA requests revealed welfare recipients were regularly making EBT withdrawals at the ATMs near and inside infamous porn shops, liquor stores, lounges and hookah parlors. Technically, it also doesn’t break the law because of the “cash assistance program.”

Read more: dailycaller.com...

Link to NY Post story mentioned above.

Harte

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xtrozero

Thanks for the personal anecdote.

I can't say what happened to you personally, of course, in the history of your life.

Maybe you were depressed by a Democrat in the White House?

Well actually I voted for Reagan, I didn't vote for Bush Sr, I voted for Clinton the first time, second time I did not vote since I didn't like anyone, voted for Bush II, didn't vote for anyone on Obama's first term once again didn't like anyone, voted for Romney, will vote for anyone but Clinton for 2016...

So you tell me

What I can say about both the Clinton and Obama Administrations, is that the economy improved during those years after falling off during the preceding Republican Administrations ... /shrug

It seems every president takes over a shrinking economy, the difference between Obama vs Reagan, Clinton and Bush II is these three got the economy back on track within a year or so and Obama is just now seeing gains after 6 years. Those have been a long 6 years for many Americans, sad to say.

You just want to ignore the fact that Reagan initiated the modern deficit?

Yes, I'll just ignore your favorite point that you seem to want to keep pushing....

You do know that Clinton handed Bush II a surplus, one that was projected to grow if we didn't enter two wars, so I disagree with you, and I'll leave it at that.

You just want to ignore the fact that the Bush Administration thought that was fine, and that "deficits don't matter"?

Haven't I seen you railing about how dangerous these deficits are to the American Economy?

Yep two wars later and in 2009- 2010 we had to pay the piper...

I think Obama's failed trillion dollar stimulus package where he was passing 10 billions around like they were 10 bucks was icing on the cake so to speak.

Obama has taken what Bush II started and has thrown gas on it instead of water, even with drones. We need someone that is willing to reduce the Federal Government's foot print/Government cost and not just expanding everything, I don't care if it is a Democrat, Republican or Independent as long as that is what they want to do.

a reply to: Harte

So, you and BomSquad would like to dictate what people can spend money on?

And your reference is the tabloid New York Post?

Hey, have they seen Batboy or Elvis lately at any of these strip clubs?

a reply to: Xtrozero

I should tell you whether you were depressed during the Clinton or Obama years based on your voting record?

I'm not that good at mind-reading, sorry. Were you depressed?

There are plenty of problems with what Obama has done, but let me ask you a few questions in return:

Was the state of the economy that any of these other President's faced as abyssmal as what we saw in 2008? Described as the "Great Recession" to demonstrate that this was the second greatest "crash" of the American Economy since 1929?

Did any of those other Presidents face an opposition party that made it their TOP GOVERNING PRIORITY to "ensure that Obama is a one-term President" (with that gruesome smile on McConnell's saggy mug /shiver) by making it their sole political goal to stop, stymie, restrict, repress and derail ANY effort the Administration made to do anything?

My favorite point? Why do you want to ignore it, because it doesn't serve your agenda? Am I wrong about the Reagan Deficit? Am I wrong about Bush II's philosophy that "deficits don't matter?"

The President was personally handing out money then? Sorry, that's foolish generalization. Also, have you forgotten when TARP started?

I can agree COMPLETELY with reducing the government's cost!

Let's start with the gross waste in "Defense," corporate welfare, tax breaks for the super-rich, and so forth before we go after food stamps, education and healthcare ... whaddya say?

originally posted by: Harte
Do you think an average employee can accomplish the same work as, say, a tool and die maker with 20 years of experience in machining metal?
Harte

I think this is the point many miss. I have said before if I hired someone to sell ice cream and I paid them 15 dollars per hour but they could only sell 20 dollars per hour in ice cream how do I stay in business when I need to pay the overhead cost too...

An employee's worth is based on what the job they are performing is worth to a company. We are seeing it in Seattle as companies reduce their employees to overcome the higher minimum wage, or the companies shut down/move. It will be interesting in 5 years to see what is the unemployment state in Seattle will be compared to other thriving cities. I think people who get jobs will stay, but jobs will be so hard to find that others will need to move, and so Seattle will skim off their unemployed to other cities and say how successful they are...hehe