Food Stamp Use Up 1.44 million in Just One Month

reply to post by macman


Who is darrin and that other person you accuse me of being? Why are you accusing instead of engaging in a fruitful discussion anyways?

reply to post by NarrowGate


Narrowgate, I never said any of those things. How dare you lie like that, and make me out to be some kind of drooling illogical Bible-thumping ignoramus? How dare you?

This is a respectable website, and you are displaying a contemptuous attitude with posts like that. I resent the way you have treated me and everyone here, and now you pull this kind of stunt? You go too far. Your post doesn't even have anything to do with the topic!

Originally posted by AfterInfinity


The opportunities they are given to make their life better are specifically engineered to, at a certain point, flip a switch that causes them to start a balancing act between supporting themselves and breaking their backs to support the fat cats that go home with more money than they need.

Opportunity is not welfare. Please, if you don't know the difference, then there is no hope.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Seriously, who need four houses? Who needs six cars? Who needs a trillion dollar mansion? Who needs servants? Who need a chauffeur?

Whomever needs or wants them. When did you become the sole person to decide this?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

If more of those politicians lived like the people on the streets, if more of those fat cats learned how to go without more often, maybe we wouldn't have such a financial problem. And AGAIN, as I have clearly demonstrated in my original post (which you still have no acknowledged) food stamps clearly are not the problem.

Clearly you have not read what I stated, as all budgets need to be cut and welfare creates a dependency on Govt.
I have stated that the economy would be soaring if every Politician was paid the same wage that is the average for their precinct, district, county, city, state or national average.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Socialism is a result of capitalism. The same sort of people that ran communism are now in charge of capitalism, and they are doing the exact same thing with it. They take a hell of a lot more than they need, because they feel the need to burn money, and those who don't have money to burn have to work harder to get their share because it's all being carted away to vaults by men in black suits who have no names and will never be discussed.

So again with the need vs want stuff.
Is the money theirs? YESSSSS. Then they get to chose what it is spent on. Not you.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Socialism is the child of capitalism. The government is forced to give to the public because the officials are greedy, and instead of taking it out of the pockets of the government friends, they take it from higher middle class and give it to lower middle class.

No, no it is not.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You want someone to blame? Take a look at the Congress. Half of what they have, they can easily live without. Food stamps are a pithy issue compared to the mound of gold bars those birdies are perched on. You want to cut something? Start cutting stacks out of their monetary thrones.

Again, for like the hundredth time, I agree, the Govt is TOO large.
Yet you want the Govt to continue to hand out free stuff.

One statement is in direct conflict with you other.

reply to post by NarrowGate


Yeah, ah-ha.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity


Narrowgate, I never said any of those things. How dare you lie like that, and make me out to be some kind of drooling illogical Bible-thumping ignoramus? How dare you?

This is a respectable website, and you are displaying a contemptuous attitude with posts like that. I resent the way you have treated me and everyone here, and now you pull this kind of stunt? You go too far. Your post doesn't even have anything to do with the topic!

Yep, because I am always on here, preaching about the bible and so on.

Sure sure.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

yes, i said that, to which you responded ...

I've lived on much less than $700 for food a month, much less. It is not fun, but it is quite doable.

since the difference between living on $700 per month and spending $700 for food a month, has to be pointed out to you, then clearly, you've NEVER done it

That's a rather stupid assumption. I have lived on less that $500 TOTAL a month before. Everytime you try to get your gotcha by playing semantics, you end up looking even more silly. You assume, with great prejudice I must add, than someone who is successful now, didn't have to struggle back in their past. This is blatantly false. I've struggled, I've done without, and that is why I know it can be done.

i'm not the one playing games.
i can only respond to what you wrote and this is the first you said anything like the above ... "i have lived on less than $500 Total" ... had you said that the first time, perhaps you'd have gotten a different reply.

why are you trying to make me responsible for what YOU wrote ?
i have made no such assumption, where do you get off claiming i did ?
link it or find another bone to pick.

actually, most everyone i know had to "struggle" and in must worse conditions that we are today so what's your point ??

if we're going to engage a battle of "struggles", how's this one for starters ? www.jaha.org... ... during a recession, gas shortage and rations.
and that's just my personal history.

what in the world makes you think that i perceive other's success any less a struggle ??
me thinks you are reaching for straws because you have no solid argument.

Because you sad it with your "don't know what it is like" crapola.

then clearly, you've NEVER done it

Seriously, do you forget what you write the instant you hit the enter button?

reply to post by NavyDoc

And this is where you fail. The taxpayer requires a service, say being a fireman. The fireman is hired to provide said service to the taxpayer. The taxpayer recieves the benefit of that service. Giving out a handout does not provide a service nor a good nor a benefit to the taxpayer. The fireman provides a service for his money. The welfare recipient does not. Quite a simple concept.

this doesn't even qualify as reasonable let alone comparable

NO family food benefit equals the monthly payroll + benefits of ANY single government employee ... that is the MOST ridiculous argument i've read yet.

btw, bucket brigades didn't require "payment" for services. and, they used a whole lot more human effort to get the job done.

as ususal, we pay to develop the machines, build them, place them in service, then get told we're not good enough for a meal, got it.

every welfare recipient i know is AT THE LEAST, a parent.
tis a shame, yet again, parents are accused of not providing a service to their community
this is getting to be a common theme, anyone else noticing it?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

And this is where you fail. The taxpayer requires a service, say being a fireman. The fireman is hired to provide said service to the taxpayer. The taxpayer recieves the benefit of that service. Giving out a handout does not provide a service nor a good nor a benefit to the taxpayer. The fireman provides a service for his money. The welfare recipient does not. Quite a simple concept.

this doesn't even qualify as reasonable let alone comparable

NO family food benefit equals the monthly payroll + benefits of ANY single government employee ... that is the MOST ridiculous argument i've read yet.

btw, bucket brigades didn't require "payment" for services. and, they used a whole lot more human effort to get the job done.

as ususal, we pay to develop the machines, build them, place them in service, then get told we're not good enough for a meal, got it.

every welfare recipient i know is AT THE LEAST, a parent.
tis a shame, yet again, parents are accused of not providing a service to their community

this is getting to be a common theme, anyone else noticing it?

Logic is not your strong suit. It is laughable to compare someone who is paid funds for a service and someoen who is paid funds for doing nothing. The two are not comparable.

Now please tell me how a government that cannot be trusted with vaccinations or is responsible for destroying the family farm suddenly becomes altruistic where welfare is concerned?

reply to post by macman

Opportunity is not welfare. Please, if you don't know the difference, then there is no hope.

No, it's the consolation prize.

Whomever needs or wants them. When did you become the sole person to decide this?

No one needs six cars unless they are strictly for business. When did you become the sole person to decide that a million people should starve because you can't spare a few dollars in beer money every two weeks to allow their purchase of peanut butter and bread for the local Dollar Tree?

Clearly you have not read what I stated, as all budgets need to be cut and welfare creates a dependency on Govt.
I have stated that the economy would be soaring if every Politician was paid the same wage that is the average for their precinct, district, county, city, state or national average.

The government WANTS us to be dependent on them. That's the easiest way to keep us manageable. Create a demand, control the demand, and you have the minds of the people wrapped around your fat bejeweled finger.

So again with the need vs want stuff.
Is the money theirs? YESSSSS. Then they get to chose what it is spent on. Not you.

So your voice is the lone cry of selfish defiance against the raging howl of hunger? Because it looks like everyone else is happy to give a few dollars every week or so to keep a man, woman, or child fed. That's called compassion.

No, no it is not.

Socialism is a child of capitalism because capitalism is run by greedy people. They take an opportunity, they capitalize it, and every time they repeat the process, they have a bigger opportunity with bigger revenue that sucks the life out of the economy until the weaker people with less connections and less corporate booty to kiss have to work ten times as hard to get ten times less. And that's when socialism is necessary to keep the blue collars satisfied for another few decades until the corporations can figure out a clever way to keep their money and still make it look like they're doing something.

Because when everything runs on money, who wants to give up their green power? Especially when you're used to a posh lifestyle and couldn't imagine life without Jeeves and his warm towels ready to dry you the moment you exit your $800,000 jacuzzi so you can sleep in you $400,000 dollar bed that cost ten times more than a queen-sized that serves just as well.

Again, for like the hundredth time, I agree, the Govt is TOO large.
Yet you want the Govt to continue to hand out free stuff.

One statement is in direct conflict with you other.

I never said that. If I did, I apologize. Either they continue to support the people they keep robbing, or they find a better way to manage capitalism. That's what I'm saying right now.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Uhh..what? IDK what happened here, but there is some kind of misunderstanding. I will ignore your insults like always... You sure do make a lot of them though.
Heres some bible thumping for you "it is not what goes in your mouth that defiles you, it is what comes out of it".


I will have to go back and look if I linked to the wrong post.... but if you did not say it then no one will think you did? You linked to one of my posts. I am about to go back and take the time to figure out how this happened. My computer is slow so give me a second.

When I responded to one of your posts, I simply said I agree with that post, and we normally but heads on theological issues but not that specific issue I replied to.....

reply to post by NavyDoc


This tired argument..

How can someone that doesn't know how to do math be expected to read a book?!?!

reply to post by macman


He was not talking to you, and our conversation was on topic. I hope people take the time to read it, it is very interesting how you responded to the points I brought up// if you would like to quote my entire post in context, or just click "reply to", we can continue.

I have noticed that while I try to show the utmost respect to people on this website, I am constantly belittled, called names, and accused on top of having almost every post taken out of context. "quote" and "reply to" buttons work, but people don't use them. Is there something I am missing here?
Then people tell me I am the one doing all of that, but the posts contradict that theory.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

It's not so much the cost as it is the number of people dependent on government that is disturbing.

We now have a sizeable population dependent on government to eat! This is indicative of failed policy and it is only getting worse!

which failed policy or policies?
please elaborate

reply to post by winterkill


That is nothing, wait for January when Obamacare comes into effect with all the glorious taxes and families are forced to buy insurance over buying food

Still that doesn't include the next round of Obamacuts in defense that includes government workers that will hit also in January.

But is OK, I guess is plenty of tax dollars to support the increases on unemployment benefits and welfare, that is the now growing class in the US the welfare class, those that works but can not live without some government assistance

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

This tired argument..

How can someone that doesn't know how to do math be expected to read a book?!?!

Got to be a tad more specific. One problem with a website that has a "reply to" without quoting button, is that sometimes you don't know what another person is referencing.

If you are referring to the comparing the salary of a government employee to a welfare benefit, the actual amount has nothing to do with the underlying principle--that one gets payment for a service provided and the other gets payment for nothing.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

This tired argument..

How can someone that doesn't know how to do math be expected to read a book?!?!

Got to be a tad more specific. One problem with a website that has a "reply to" without quoting button, is that sometimes you don't know what another person is referencing.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Now please tell me how a government that cannot be trusted with vaccinations or is responsible for destroying the family farm suddenly becomes altruistic where welfare is concerned?

You are implying an artificial bifurcation of an incredibly complex social construct.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

This tired argument..

How can someone that doesn't know how to do math be expected to read a book?!?!

Got to be a tad more specific. One problem with a website that has a "reply to" without quoting button, is that sometimes you don't know what another person is referencing.

If you are referring to the comparing the salary of a government employee to a welfare benefit, the actual amount has nothing to do with the underlying principle--that one gets payment for a service provided and the other gets payment for nothing.

edit on 11-12-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

What service is being provided by a government employee?

reply to post by NarrowGate


This post right here.

reply to post by NarrowGate


Not a single one of those quotes which says originally posted by AfterInfinity was actually posted by me. Scan this entire thread, you'll see I didn't post any of those quoted selections. Since you had nothing to quote, it had to be done manually, which requires a certain amount of knowing exactly what you're doing.

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by NarrowGate

These things are hardly comparable to being struck by lightning. Thanks for playing though

You want to play what ifs, that is a what if. I did enjoy playing. That was fun to point that out.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I am only educated as far as a high school diploma, but they taught me about discussion and a form of logic.

Ok, now that is kind of weird, but sure.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Then I read the Bible, and I learned about context, logic, and proper discussion! That is where most of my education lies, so don't tell me about my sentence structure.

Sure sure.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
The way it works is you brought up invalid points, I brought up valid points, you refuse to refute said valid points with anything other than "what if you get hit by lightning"...

Yeah sure.

All of those quoted sections with my username on them? Not a single one of them is legitimate. I don't know what game you're playing here, but I don't like it. Not one bit.

reply to post by macman

just cause you said it doesn't make it so.
however, you are free to believe it just don't expect many to support your opinion.

you are confused.
if you want fair, how 'bout we pay today's military an equivalent of what the Tuskegee Airmen got ?? (with inflation of course)
you know, those guys who made the war winnable ??

i don't agree with the government taking more, i'd prefer they manage what they get, better.
[well, i'd prefer less but i also think that's fantasy at this point]

it does matter.
without food, ppl die.
without shelter, ppl adapt.
oh for heavens sake, what does age have to do with it ?
hungry is hungry.

should we beg for water too ?

i do help, i've been helping but i also benefit from the assistance of others.
the govt says i don't qualify for their help.

from the form ... you are not 65 or older
you do not meet the disability requirement
(ie, not disabled enough)
no household members are eligible for this program

now, what more should i do ? there are no other govt programs to apply to. it's me (and trade) or it's nothing aside from the charity of others. [unless you expect me to grill my felines]

a band-aid ?? are you serious
hardly a good analogy.

why are you so adamant about a "cut" to a program that utilizes so few available resources ??
heck, we could cut our foreign aid to one country and double the benefits for those who get them now ... let's not be stupid about this discussion, eh ?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

No, it's the consolation prize.

No, as it is the end result of either bad choices, bad luck, failures or a combinations of.
But, others should not carry the water and sorrows of others.
It is that persons, they need to own it.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

No one needs six cars unless they are strictly for business.

SO much for personal freedom, huh?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
When did you become the sole person to decide that a million people should starve because you can't spare a few dollars in beer money every two weeks to allow their purchase of peanut butter and bread for the local Dollar Tree?

I didn't. I don't want the Govt, which can't get anything right, to steal from me to give to others. regardless how mush or little money I have or make.
Oh, yeah, again, I personally donate time and money every month.
Maybe if I keep stating that, it will get through one time.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

The government WANTS us to be dependent on them. That's the easiest way to keep us manageable. Create a demand, control the demand, and you have the minds of the people wrapped around your fat bejeweled finger.

So champion Welfare and food stamps?????

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

So your voice is the lone cry of selfish defiance against the raging howl of hunger? Because it looks like everyone else is happy to give a few dollars every week or so to keep a man, woman, or child fed. That's called compassion.

No, welfare and food stamps is not compassion. Compassion and the executed action from compassion is of free will. Not via the Govt. What the Govt is doing is theft. Theft from one to give to another.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Socialism is a child of capitalism because capitalism is run by greedy people. They take an opportunity, they capitalize it, and every time they repeat the process, they have a bigger opportunity with bigger revenue that sucks the life out of the economy until the weaker people with less connections and less corporate booty to kiss have to work ten times as hard to get ten times less. And that's when socialism is necessary to keep the blue collars satisfied for another few decades until the corporations can figure out a clever way to keep their money and still make it look like they're doing something.

Oh geez, another lengthy retort on how capitalism is not fair and just about greedy people.
I do believe that people are free to be greedy.
I can' see where it states otherwise in any law.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Because when everything runs on money, who wants to give up their green power? Especially when you're used to a posh lifestyle and couldn't imagine life without Jeeves and his warm towels ready to dry you the moment you exit your $800,000 jacuzzi so you can sleep in you $400,000 dollar bed that cost ten times more than a queen-sized that serves just as well.

And people are free to do so.
Funny, as the most self aggrandizing people that are of that lifestyle, are the moron movie actors and musicians. You know, the same turds that were on PSA for 0bama, stating its not fair for such and such people. I don't really see them moving to fast to give half their wealth to the poor.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

I never said that. If I did, I apologize. Either they continue to support the people they keep robbing, or they find a better way to manage capitalism. That's what I'm saying right now.

Huh???