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: 24
16
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


Oh, boo-hoo. I shall cry in the corner because a new member here has decided that I don't posses the intellectual capacity to understand Protectionism and BS when I see it.


I never made that opinion of you. Perhaps you are engaging in Projection?




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
unless you've paid the tax rates of the 70s, you don't know what being taxed too much is ... it's never happened since.

Oh, did my accountant or financial adviser call you?


yes, we do, in some cases but a hungry person, should always come first.
do you feed yourself before your children ? Yep, they sure do.
do you feed yourself before your pets/animals ? Nope, as they are animals
do you feed yourself before your guests ?? Depends on the circumstance. Normal politeness, no, guest come first.
But if they stare at me, I beat them to death with my Evil Black Assault Rifle, shoot their kids and eat their pets.


Originally posted by Honor93
if you answer yes to any of the above, that's not surprising.

Ok then.

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



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by macman
 


As a member of the US armed forces, you should understand the phrase "It is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak" quite well.


However, in the case of redistributive entitlements, it is a case of the strong taking from the weak to give to the slightly weaker in exchange for their votes.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


Yep, still going and getting very weird with some members replies.

Good to have you back.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
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?

me personally, no ... in this case, less is more.
however, eliminating a program that provides sustenance to increasing numbers by the month should not even be considered for a cut at this time.

pro-entitlements ? nope but that includes the MIC
SS is not an entitlement.
disability is not an entitlement.
Medicare is not an entitlement.

food stamps are not an entitlement ... if it were, i'd be "qualified" to get them too.

i don't think less ppl depending on govt is a bad thing but the govt pulling the rug out from under those who are dependant on it isn't the right answer either.

ETA --> the concept "sink or swim" doesn't even work out well in a swimming pool, how could it possibly work in this instance ??
edit on 11-12-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by macman
 


As a member of the US armed forces, you should understand the phrase "It is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak" quite well.


However, in the case of redistributive entitlements, it is a case of the strong taking from the weak to give to the slightly weaker in exchange for their votes.


Actually, it is the self-described "weak" taking from the strong.

Just my humble. . .



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by macman
 


What is this child talking about? Different log ins? Are you saying you intentionally edited that because you thought we were the same person!?!?!

We are not.


Yeah, ok then.



Ok I know I am not the most popular guy on this forum, but mods if this type of behavior is allowed I do not see the point in posting here. I know you don't care if I post here but can you please look into this without bias?

If people play games like that, there will be no beneficial discussion for anyone.

Macman, I too suffer from PTSD and know that it can cause slight paranoia but you are wrong. We are not the same person.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by macman
 


As a member of the US armed forces, you should understand the phrase "It is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak" quite well.


And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Oh, I see, you are trying, weakly, to equate that to having the Govt steal from some to give to others as protecting them.

But wait, how about the "Leave no man behind" argument?
Will you use that next?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by beezzer
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?

me personally, no ... in this case, less is more.
however, eliminating a program that provides sustenance to increasing numbers by the month should not even be considered for a cut at this time.

pro-entitlements ? nope but that includes the MIC
SS is not an entitlement.
disability is not an entitlement.
Medicare is not an entitlement.

food stamps are not an entitlement ... if it were, i'd be "qualified" to get them too.

i don't think less ppl depending on govt is a bad thing but the govt pulling the rug out from under those who are dependant on it isn't the right answer either.


A rational well thought out reply.

Thank you for answering.




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 

Just re-read your statement.
I stand by my retort.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


so youre linking me to an opinion piece? ......nice
should have known better than to expect some real examples

(the one example given in the "article" is the smoot hawley tariff act which was.... you guessed it tariffs on imported goods and had nothing to do with domestic bodies utilizing a foreign work force)

raising taxes on domestic companies using a foreign work force is not even technically protectionism as protectionism relates to foreign entities penetrating a market (which is why i specifically asked for examples that do not include this)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Ok I know I am not the most popular guy on this forum, but mods if this type of behavior is allowed I do not see the point in posting here. I know you don't care if I post here but can you please look into this without bias?
.


Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by macman
 


As a member of the US armed forces, you should understand the phrase "It is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak" quite well.


And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Oh, I see, you are trying, weakly, to equate that to having the Govt steal from some to give to others as protecting them.

But wait, how about the "Leave no man behind" argument?
Will you use that next?



If that is indeed what that was about, you now understand the importance of context. I did not have the opportunity to read the context I was too busy figuring out if you are the one who is the child. You have all but confirmed it.

For someone so big on personal responsibility, you sure as heck take none. I am so happy I am not serving with you, you have no idea.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
what opinion beezzer? its not an opinion that producing machines is not going to employe a large percentage of the population
care to explain yourself? because im failing to see where i injected opinion into this

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



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sirhumperdink
 


When would you like to take your drug test?

Oh, the other thing is that you have to purchase a new firearm, because cops aren't cheap and you need to protect yourself.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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.

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


I did not manually edit anything and my character would show that. i am not saying they are legitimate, I am saying I did not edit any of that. If someone did, it was not me. Mods could you shed some light on what the heck just happened and who did the editing? From my best guess, it was macman.
edit on 11-12-2012 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)



Does anyone else see this? combine that with macman's non-stop accusations and you have a good idea of what happened. I am sure it is logged for the mods to sort out.

Mods, please inform myself and AfterI of what actually happened. We have been engaging in multiple discussions, and I would like his opinion of me not to be less than it already is. No AfterI that does not mean I actually care what you think about me, but if you chose to continue one of our discussions that is somewhat important to me, this would hurt my credibility with you. I would never resort to such dishonest and childish tactics.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

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.
and, the Navy is a standing army, how exactly ???
how many Russian subs have they intercepted or even detected close to American shores ??
didn't one cruise through or up and down the GoM recently without detection ??

i didn't say i had qualms with the Navy anyway ... my stance is with a "standing army" that is frequently used to invade other sovereign countries.
show me where such a provision exists in the Constitution or any affliliated papers.

Parenting is NOT "doing nothing" ... and your aggressive instance to the opposite is rather disturbing.

contrary to your opinion, i don't believe there is any service in existence that is more important, more valuable or more contributory to a stable society than good parents and for that reason alone, they should be provided food whether they perform additional labor for it or not.

anyone who thinks parenting isn't laborious has never been one.
edit on 11-12-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by sirhumperdink
 


When would you like to take your drug test?

Oh, the other thing is that you have to purchase a new firearm, because cops aren't cheap and you need to protect yourself.



what in the hell are you rambling on about?

how does that have anything at all to do with what i was talking about?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Some are still missing something here...As I said above...I hate to see my fellow man suffering...but let's break this down to nuts and bolts.

"Food stamps" are actually corporate subsidies. They allow companies to pay less than a living wage. It is a win-win for the Nanny state...they subsidize the corporations and create dependency...are you not getting this? Now, to feed yourself, you have to rely on the big gov machine....you have to bow to their regulations...you have to accept their agenda or...oops!...no more food for you!

It is the most clever and well thought out marriage of Gov and business ever contrived. Kinda like the random drug tests. Thanks to the ACLU, the Gov cannot call for random screenings of the public...however...they can give corporations workman's compensation allowances for them to do it for them...they get a deduct and the test results are forwarded to the GOV...did you not know this? If you think this Gov is worried about your freedom...you are seriously and sadly mistaken.
edit on 12/11/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/11/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink

what opinion beezzer? its not an opinion that producing machines is not going to employe a large percentage of the population
care to explain yourself? because im failing to see where i injected opinion into this

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


Your thinking is narrow. Or do you see just the employment of factory workers then end-all be-all in employment?

Your "opinion" that factory workers are the only employment for people is a narrow-minded opinion.

People create, people innovate, if the freedoms that they are born with are not denied or inhibited by draconian government rule.

Hope this clears it up for you.
(doubt it though)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join