GOPer Who Got Millions in Farm Subsidies Thinks the Poor Should Starve Rather Than Get Food Stamps

page: 1
43
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+34 more 
posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
GOPer Who Got Millions in Farm Subsidies Thinks the Poor Should Starve Rather Than Get Food Stamps

Stephen Fincher, a deranged Republican congressman from Tennessee, is very angry that the federal government is committed to preventing poor people from starving to death:

Republican Congressman Stephen Fincher of Tennessee, who supports cuts to the program, had his own Bible verse from the Book of Thessalonians to quote back to Vargas: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat,” he said.

Nice. (NOT)

He fulminates about people who are allegedly "unwilling to work" sucking off the government teat with impunity. This is a patently dishonest representation of the SNAP program. Most people who receive food stamps cannot be dismissed as losers who are "unwilling to work." Nearly half (47%) of all food stamp recipients are children. Another 8% are 60 years of age or older. The "working poor" - people who live in a household with income from work - represent another 41%. Between children, the elderly, the working poor, and people who want a job but cannot find one - someone should tell Fincher that there are still more than 3 unemployed job seekers for every 1 opening - that leaves very few people who can be accurately described as being "unwilling" to work.

Good God this stuff makes me insane.

What a ridiculous bunch of tripe. This is what the Far-Right screechers about 'Nanny Statism' actually think is the right thing to do! I find it completely immoral and unbelievably sadistic. Who in their right mind thinks that it's okay for people to starve, whether here or in places where 'mutlinational corporations' pay only pennies per hour while Americans go without?

I've heard people say, "Well, they had to go overseas to survive." And, "it's not tax evasion, it's legal to go to whatever country offers the lowest tax rates" (in response to corporations CAUSING unemployment and poverty here at home)

I just can't accept that those statements are sane. Or that intelligent people would think that this isn't really the problem.
For heaven's sake, people!!

REALLY?!!

Shame on Fincher, and anyone who spouts this crap as "moral" and "standing for liberty."

I know Progressives aren't popular here, and are maligned as "commies" (which I persistently try to point out is FALSE) - but I'm not gonna shut up about this stuff. It's inhumane and disgusting, and its the child of RAMPANT GREED and CAPITALISM GONE BERSERK.

I hardly know what else to say. So here you go, ATS. Discuss. Let's figure out a REAL SOLUTION after identifying once and for all the REAL PROBLEM: GREED and PROFITS-ABOVE-ALL mentality. It's antisocial, psychopathic barbarism.




posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

It takes a deeply disturbed person to crusade against providing this class of people with food to eat, when the economy is this battered, and when the broad economic benefits of the program have been so well established (at least in the reality-based community).

Now, this would not normally be worthy of mention. Hardly a day goes by without some Republican sadist expressing fury that poor people have it so good. Devising new ways to make the peasants suffer is what makes Republicans wake up in the morning.

Check the link, it's not a long article, to read about the MILLIONS that Fincher himself has "filched" of the Government.
:shk:
What is wrong with these people?!!



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I think the largest problem here isn't so much the fact the Government is feeding people through the SNAP program...and it isn't costing much, despite what some like to make it sound like.

It's that we, as a nation, spend literally trillions above most of the rest of the planet combined....and still have basic issues with people NEEDING more government help just to eat.

In a system where we've come to spend so much on a daily through annual basis on everything humanly imaginable for Government to spend money on? I think there is no excuse whatever that anyone not have the food they need and the MEANS to earn it without much trouble or challenge.

By the way.....when did farming and collection of subsidies become a partisan thing? Some of the larger porkers in this part of Missouri for playing 'Gentleman Farmer' and sucking off the system are Democrats...not that it matters for that, which is kinda the point. The politics of food? That too is a statement worthy of a story all it's own.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I would think that not everyone that is getting help from the government is just not working. Some cannot work and some can't find jobs at all. It's not their fault that there might be someone out there abusing the system.


+3 more 
posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Didn't you know?

According to the GOP and the Dems, subsidizing things like farms and oil is the FREE MARKET AT WORK!.



Food stamps, well that's just socialist medicine for the communist/terrorist infiltrators of China, Iran and North Korea.

And them pesky Muslims too. Oh and gun owners and the middle class and..well you like about 99% of population.

Isn't that weird.

~Tenth



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I agree with him.

If you are unwilling to work you should not be allowed ANY government help.

Unwilling being the key word here.

un•will•ing (ʌnˈwɪl ɪŋ) adj. 1. not willing; reluctant; loath; averse. 2. opposed; offering resistance; stubborn or obstinate.

If someone is UNABLE to work then that is a completely different story. I personally have a friend who receives foodstamps, welfare, and his wife was national guard, so there are some more benefits. His stance on getting a job is, "Why should I go get a job when the government is going to pay me more to sit here and play computer games."

Justify that, because a HUGE portion of welfare recipients are THAT.

Also explain why 78% of the "Farm Bill" now goes to food stamps? The government has been using agriculture as a trojan horse for years, and soon it is going to reap what it sows.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jssaylor2007
 


You missed the part about the fact that for every job opening there are THREE PEOPLE looking for work.

Those who are willing are not finding the opportunities, pal. I'm one of them. And I'm not fussy about what I will or won't do for work EXCEPT toe some bullcrap corporate line of exploiting the 'laborers' just to increase profits. THAT I will not do. Proven track record of refusal. Doesn't make one very popular with upper management.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Well to be honest, people love to get them food-stamps , even if they don't need them. I imagine it is a political correct way of saying get off Ur butt and work and quit depending on welfare. I have no problem with telling welfare recipients if you are able then get up and work and quit abusing the system. Quit pushing out more and more kids for a bigger check.

But wait, Der Fuhrer promised me my Phone, Where my Phone at Obama???
Oh, there is , by my first of the month check and EBT card.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I think the article was written with a political bias, yes, but it's NOT a partisan issue. It's a greed issue, and there are greedy creeps on both sides - called lobbyists, Wall Streeters, and multinational corporate "people".

I'm bringing it up from that angle because I see a LOT of it coming from the Far-Right.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Farms MUST be subsidized due to the gross government manipulation of agricultural commodities. In 1976 the price of cotton was around 80 cents a pound. This year, cotton is expected to bring around 80 cents a pound. Its odd how everything goes through inflation except agricultural commodities. If farmers weren't paid subsidies then I can guarantee you there would not be any farming in the US save people who were subsistence farmers.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Yup!
I made a 'companion thread' to this one which highlights global business as the culprit.

None of this is "breaking news" - but it needs to stay in the headlines here, where we discuss 'conspiracies'.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Thats a blatant lie of a statistic if I have ever seen one. Businesses ARE hiring.

How many businesses do not post ads? How many are local businesses that are overlooked?


+1 more 
posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jssaylor2007
I agree with him.

If you are unwilling to work you should not be allowed ANY government help.

Unwilling being the key word here.

un•will•ing (ʌnˈwɪl ɪŋ) adj. 1. not willing; reluctant; loath; averse. 2. opposed; offering resistance; stubborn or obstinate.


Like the rest of the GOP Congress, Fincher has been "Unwilling" to work since he was elected.

So are you in favour of him not receiving any government benefits?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jssaylor2007
 


I didn't make the statement. It's in the article.

But I am living, breathing, evidence that I am unable to find even the most menial part-time job, and I've been looking for years. I've dumbed down my resume (even stopped using one at all to simulate 'entry level no-skills' status). I've submitted countless applications to large companies via their websites as well as local small-businesses that are using craigslist.

I'm over 50 years old, bilingual, and hold an advanced professional degree. I have multiple different skills, as well. I network with friends and associates. Still nothing. I even still go into places I shop and ask if they are hiring.

So eat 'that' little statistic, and then call me a liar.


edit on 22-5-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Well indeed... You might have noticed the research I did on this very issue.



People who blame the SNAP program for much of anything are flat out ignorant of it's actual costs in comparison to it's value. I'll also bet those recieving it are pretty well spread among the political belief systems. After all, a measurable % of our armed forces families also take SNAP/Food stamps. It's a program that supplies to all areas of society. For the cost? It's one of the few I'd say Government does a half way decent job with for benefit vs. dollars to get there.

I guess what kinda rankles me is the almost myopic fanaticism about Right Wing/Left Wing. Yeah.. Those are some ignorant sounding Republicans.....in a state just North of the one who declared his dire concerns to a U.S. Navy Admiral that Guam itself would capsize with too many troops moved to it's surface.

Ignorance knows no party line. Hate knows no party line and petty cruelty knows no color difference. No black or white ..or red and blue, IMHO. In this case? I agree with your OP 100% in the cheesy nature of going after SNAP in even a passing way....while wasting trillions on B.S.. Make SNAP the *LAST*, not first program to reform and I'd be with them.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Have you EVER and I mean EVER gone to a place in person? The largest mistake people have these days with unemployment is the fact that they just submit online resumes and call it "job hunting."

If so you must live in a cesspool of unemployment, and I'm sorry about that, but do what your ancestors would have done, move.

What did people do during the depression when times got hard? They MOVED.

If that isnt something you have seriously considered, they it sounds like the government tit is doing a good job keeping you fed, because people dont make drastic changes in life until they suffer. The governments master plan is to keep people, all people, from suffering. When people arent in pain, they can be content. When they can be content, there is no reason for things to change.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jssaylor2007
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Farms MUST be subsidized due to the gross government manipulation of agricultural commodities. In 1976 the price of cotton was around 80 cents a pound. This year, cotton is expected to bring around 80 cents a pound. Its odd how everything goes through inflation except agricultural commodities. If farmers weren't paid subsidies then I can guarantee you there would not be any farming in the US save people who were subsistence farmers.



No that's not right.

Farmers require subsidies because the GOVERNMENT forces them to grow particular useless crops like corn from Monsanto. ON top of that, because of see gene patents, they can't keep their seeds, so they have to in-debt themselves to those companies year after year.

The fact that we allow speculation of base commodities such as wheat and other base foods is what caused this problem.

What next you're going to tell me that Oil Companies also require a subsidy?

~Tenth



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jssaylor2007
 


see my edit to the post you're attacking.
YES, I HAVE EVER.
So booya.

"Move"? "Cesspool"? FYI, I am not a bottom-feeder or a system leech. Fortunately my husband IS gainfully employed and our kids are out on their own. We can't "move" if he wants to keep HIS job, which pays enough for both of us to survive. One income household. Hardly any debt (the mortgage is the only one aside from a student loan that I can't repay due to "hardship" status). We live within our means, in a modest neighborhood.

We spend only on absolute necessities (food, fuel) and occasional household maintenance items. We don't go on shopping sprees for the new season's "fashions".

Our vehicles are paid for in full.
WE MAKE DO WITH WHAT WE HAVE. And retirement is not looking good.

No, it's not a cesspool, and I'm not lazy. The cost of living here is mercifully low. I've reached that horrible "over 50" category which no one wants to hire, and I've even tried the places that AARP says are looking for older workers.

Your ideas are naive.
edit on 22-5-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

Subsidizing any of it is anti-free market. Subsidizing a business in a free market and not letting it fail when it should, is like Christianity saying that there is no hell to worry about. It simply doesn't work that way.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BritofTexas
 


If he was mine I wouldnt vote for him. But he isnt.

Mine is Rep.) Randy Neugebauer. He is about as worthless as they come.

I don't vote based upon party lines, I vote based upon who I believe best represents me and my issues. If they say one thing and vote completely different when they get to Washington a la Neugebauer, then vote them out.





new topics
top topics
 
43
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join