It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Food Stamp Use Up 1.44 million in Just One Month

page: 21
16
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NarrowGate
 


Oh geez, please pardon me and my intrusion. I thought that all were free to respond here.
I did not realize you took control of ATS.

A thousand apologizes.




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink

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


The high taxes for one. The United States has been very business "unfriendly" for over a decade now. Over regulation for another. The draconian edicts that the EPA has been laying down. Refusal for off-shore drilling.

Why start a business in America when you have to immediately shell out for ObamaCare, higher taxes, more regulations, no tax incentives.

Businesses want to grow and make money. (that means hiring people)

When government makes that harder, government is to blame.




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

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?


It depends on what is required. One assumes that a firefighter puts out fires, for example.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

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


Usually when I see a response of "it's complex" the underlying reason actually is "it's cool if I like it and an evil conspiracy if I don't like it."



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   




And if a country needed invading because it wasn't giving the United States its oil, which government employee would we need for that one?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I can not imagine why somebody can come out and say that government employees do not give anything, I guess my husband a retired Marine working for the government as a contractor is getting a free ride and getting pay for doing nothing.

Darn I can not wait to tell him today what some people out there think about his type of job.
I guess somebody out there think that his skills in his area are actually very much worth what they pay him for his services.


Darn is too bad that he with nothing to do all day works 9 hours a day, that is a lot of hours doing nothing.

edit on 11-12-2012 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


but you cannot deny that keeping up a military is one of the duties of the federal government as outlined in our Constitution
oh yes, we can because no such thing exists.
there is no provision for a "standing army".
there are plenty of arguments against that specific thing (standing army) in the Federalist papers, have you ever read them ?

our current military is not providing defense for Americans.
if you believe it is, please point out who has attacked/invaded us this decade?

oh, that's right, those ppl aren't even being tracked, gathered or sent back ... nvm.

and if or when this happens ...

If you aren't man enough to give your spares away to a family in need, then someone with a family to feed can be man enough to TAKE them away
what good will our soldiers be to Americans, when they are on foreign soil ??



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

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.

reference to what???


Originally posted by Honor93
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 ??

What does that have to do with anything.


Originally posted by Honor93
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]

They should be doing less, with less for less.


Originally posted by Honor93
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 ?

All things that are the responsibility of the person.




Originally posted by Honor93

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]

I don't know. It is your life, you need to figure that out.
I have my own life problems to deal with.



Originally posted by Honor93
a band-aid ?? are you serious

hardly a good analogy.

Yes, as the people are the wound, welfare and food stamps are the band-aid, covering the issue.
Taking it off will hurt, but is the best thing to do. The wound needs air.



Originally posted by Honor93
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 ?

Because ALL Programs and Budgets need to be cut. More some then others.
Because the American Tax payer is taxed to much as is.
Because the American Tax payer knows how better to spend his/her money, not the Govt.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by Honor93
 


LOL. So let me get this straight: the same malicious, corrupt government that is killing people with vaccinations and destroying the family farm is the same altruistic government that is the only thing that can feed poor people and must be trusted with redistribution of billions of dollars to the underprivileged. LOL.
whoever said that ?? not i.
i'm all for a multi-faceted approach, why aren't you ?
and why not, they do the same for every other country (via the UN & IMF), why not our own ??
we're paying for it.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   




Well then, please be assured that when I say a subject is complex, I mean just that. If you are interested in going down the path of complexity with me, I will name a few variables in your string just to get us started.

FDA approval for vaccines
Big Pharma contributions to political campaigns
Former congressmen moving from public to private sector positions after voting for certain special interests
Monsato using GM seeds
Factory Farms being subsidized
Organic labeling restrictions on local farmers
Artificial price fixing by government subsidies
Estate tax on heritage farms
Feeding the poor
Reasons for high unemployment

I could go on if you want, but I would like to see what you have to offer in ways that this might be something more than just an either or. Because clearly the government should either be able to do everything well or everything poorly.

Which is harder.. trying to get people jobs.. or giving people without jobs some food?

This is why the government is better at one over the other.
edit on 11-12-2012 by DoYouEvenLift because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   




We invade people to steal their oil? That's a new one. Sounds like the EPA should do it...or the state department.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Are the people here; posting FOR more people on foodstamps?

Are you pro-entitlements?

Are you PRO bigger government?

All the rest of us (if I may be so bold) are for less people being dependent on government.

Why should you folks think that is a bad thing?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   




You are the one talking about 'stealing oil'. I was talking about invading a country that was not giving us their oil, installing a new government, and then buying their oil. You act like this hasn't happened at LEAST 9 times this last 20 years.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


but you cannot deny that keeping up a military is one of the duties of the federal government as outlined in our Constitution
oh yes, we can because no such thing exists.
there is no provision for a "standing army".
there are plenty of arguments against that specific thing (standing army) in the Federalist papers, have you ever read them ?

our current military is not providing defense for Americans.
if you believe it is, please point out who has attacked/invaded us this decade?

oh, that's right, those ppl aren't even being tracked, gathered or sent back ... nvm.

and if or when this happens ...

If you aren't man enough to give your spares away to a family in need, then someone with a family to feed can be man enough to TAKE them away
what good will our soldiers be to Americans, when they are on foreign soil ??

And yet, the Constitution specifically states that the duty of the federal government is to maintain a navy.

I don't disagree that we need to bring the troops home. We should not be the world's policeman. It is too expensive and nobody appreciates it anyway.

The cold war is over. We don't need bases in Europe.

South Korea should defend itself. We've been doing it for over 50 years and they can afford to now themselves so they need to do this.

Regardles, a soldier is still paid by the government for a service. One can agree that the service is no longer needed, but it is still a different concept than being paid for doing nothing.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
You guys making fun of the military, need to have served at least two years.

My husband when into the Marines right out of High School, and served in Vietnam, you know what the military taught him, a strong work effort.


Not sure if that was in reference to me or not, but when one of my great uncles got his leg blown off by friendly fire from a helicopter in Vietnam, it destroyed his "work effort".

I was not looking to belittle military members. I love our Soldiers; can't stand the Army though.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


We were already buying their oil. So, we invade to buy their oil, when we were already buying their oil???



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   




That's what you implied and yes, I've heard the "blood for oil" silliness for a long while now. You were in the middle of segwaying that soldiers were government employees only to rape and pilliage for oil and thus were the devil and I gaffed it off because the premise is silly to begin with.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   




Being paid to waste resources is BETTER than receiving food to survive?

Interesting morality you have.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


We were already buying their oil. So, we invade to buy their oil, when we were already buying their oil???


NO BLOOD FOR OIL, DUDE! It harshes my mellow...



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

again, link it or quit with your BS cause that's all you've got apparently.

Because you sad it with your "don't know what it is like" crapola
and for the record, you didn't live my life so you don't know what it's like, do you ?

thanks for proving a non-existant point anyway


i responded to what you wrote and that indicated exactly what the response addressed.
again, your error is not mine.

although, it doesn't surprise me that you don't seem capable of admitting when you're wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join