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

This text has been bouncing around Facebook for a while now; it's nothing new. Frankly I don't think a country like ours which produces an over-abundance of food should let anyone starve. The text is a joke about those who will always be dependent because we let them, and it's fair enough. We have people who will never even try to work. What do they know? Momma never worked, grandma never worked, the dad's not there or in prison. We are seriously trying to get people out of that life. The truth is though there aren't enough good-paying jobs for people with sub-normal intelligence, and we have millions of people like that. Even an average job for a high school graduate doesn't pay enough to make it on a sole income. All the legal immigrants we let in have to have job skills, and there are 4 millions more immigrants each year. There are strong factors which make it difficult for a lot of people to make enough to not need food stamps. We can change the conditions we've set up, and by doing so, we can change the result. Cut immigration in half to dry up the over-supply of labor that keeps wages low. Force all minors to go to school. Educate teens about birth control and make sure they have it at the school itself. We aren't doing the things that are easy to do.
a reply to: Spider879

originally posted by: MOMof3
Controlling food. Terrorize parents and children. Do you people need any more proof that sociopaths have taken over the republican party?

taken over? oh no, sociopaths FOUNDED the republican party.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Spider879

The Republican bloc need to take some damned responsibility for their failures, and stop scapegoating those who have no power to defend themselves.

This is very true. The reason people are on food stamps is because the economy is still not that great and it is hard to find a job that pays a living wage.

These big corporations such as McDonalds need the employees, yet they don't pay them enough to live on. So the taxpayers end up paying the rest of the money to the employees in food stamps so that McDonalds doesn't have to. Then McDonalds takes the money it could be giving to its workers and gives it to its CEOs who earn more than $9200 per hour, which is around 1000 times the wage they pay their workers.

I don't think it is asking too much to restructure the way the wages are paid in companies such as McDonalds. I think it is only reasonable. When this happens, look! People won't need food stamps anymore.

Business Insider

a reply to: Spider879

Haha, because politicians aren't anything like animals themselves.

*Cough* swine *cough*.

a reply to: darkbake

You have struck the nail firmly upon its pinnacle.

There is no excuse a big company can make for not restructuring its payment models to better cover the living of its staff. They complain about living wage suggestions, all the while reaping vast dividends at the CEO level. If CEOs got paid less, and lower level staff got paid enough, then as you say, government would have less work to do to ensure the living standard of the population!

Big corporations tend to be part of the problem, and it suits them to be, because it creates a scenario where they always have access to large numbers of desperate people from whom to select their employees. Another thing which is laughable, is that board members and executives are more likely to be politically aligned with the party which rags on the poor the most.

They know the cycle they help to spin, and see no reason to stop it. Why would they? It allows them to reap vast rewards at the bottom line.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I don't care what you think about me.

a reply to: neo96

I thought you stated a few posts up that food stamps were "Corporate Subsidies" ?

It would appear a very large portion of people ARE working

a reply to: beezzer

Complaining about people who put down huge portions of the population is not talking down to them. It's simply calling them jerks. You've stated that you're a Christian, do you even know what that means?

a reply to: mymymy

Bullsh!t.

I get a kick out of the way some minds think.

"You can't comment on the poor if you've never been poor!"
"You can't comment on abortion if you're not a woman!"

Yet you have no problem commenting on military service if you've never served day one!
You can comment on the rich if you've never been wealthy!

Somehow, some people have to qualify to have an opinion if it differs from you in the slightest!

a reply to: beezzer

Bullsh!t. indeed.

I never said anything about simple comments. When the OP states that the "GOP compares food stamp recipients to wild animals" a comment would be "Yea SOME are". But no, you and others come in here and simply agree, lumping all people on assistance together. A HUGE portion of food stamp recipients are also working. Just what the hell do you expect out of people who do everything they can to survive but still need help with the options they're given?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: NavyDoc

I don't care what you think about me.

Shrug. I'm just amazed that someone who claims to be so empathetic and decries others as being selfish believes that one wrong turn justifies another. Sounds like you find self-centered greed okay as long as it benefits you.

a reply to: mymymy

I see. Apparently, you are for dependence on the government, correct?

You're not interested in solutions, you and others are just butthurt over some name calling and inferring?

Yeah, lets focus on a meme instead of WHY you depend on food stamps in the first place!

I have always been of the opinion that welfare recipients should be required to volunteer in their community. That gives them exposure to potential employers, can give them the opportunity to learn new skills, and models positive & productive behaviors to their children.

I believe that folks would likely not need/want assistance for as long. There needs to be an exchange, according to the recipient's ability to do so, or we are simply giving them the bread of shame.

Myself and a couple of friends were discussing the costs associated with child birth, over lunch, and our young waitress commented, "You have to pay to have kids?" No joke... She told us she had three kids and didn't have to pay anything and had no idea. Lol

a reply to: NavyDoc

Hogwash. You just lose your arguments then turn it personal. An old,tired strategy.

a reply to: beezzer

Who said I was for dependance? I can certainly understand people that some need help, but nowhere did I say I was all for it. And when I asked you what the hell these people were supposed to do, that right there was a real question. I am all for a solution, I don't have one, but I completely agree one is needed. So instead of "name calling and inferring" how about we show a little empathy for these people and actually try to figure out the WHY?

And I am more irritated than butthurt, I don't need to put down those less fortunate than me to feel better about myself. I'm a little more secure than that.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: NavyDoc

Hogwash. You just lose your arguments then turn it personal. An old,tired strategy.

I said this:

That is illogical--that the wrong action in one hand justifies the wrong action in the other.

IE: one wrong does not justify another.

You replied with this:

Of course you would believe that. I don't.

IE: you want revenge, you believe one wrong act justifies another wrong act.

And this is why we never get anywhere because with attitudes like yours, all we get is a continual cycle of revenge and "I get me mine, now" and reprisals depending on where the pendulum has swung.

a reply to: Spider879

Heck you should come to my neck of the woods in my mostly welfare city, never find yourself on rush welfare shooping day at Walmart, they will run you over and At night time that is when the real spooks comes out.

a reply to: mymymy

Government programs aren't designed to get people off of government assistance. Government programs are only interested in the "status quo". Government needs people on assistance in order to justify it's program(s).

It is ONLY up to the individual to get off that "assistance" if they truly desire.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Why don't you start a thread about our relationship Doc and stop trying to derail this one.

a reply to: beezzer

Let no forget the profitable side of having people on welfare no only for those behind the program outside the government but for the sharks, under ground mob and illegal drug kingpins.