President Obama signs $8.7 billion food stamp cut into law

a reply to: NavyDoc

OIC and CO are two different positions, but you are a phoney you don't know any better.

No what happened here is you are phishing for personal information about me and you are trying to coerce me into committing a crime right here on ATS.

I know better.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: NavyDoc

Are you telling me you never told a lie?

You have been demonstrated to be dishonest in this thread by your very own words. The trouble with bull#ters like yourself is that you put out so much bull# that you don't even remember what you put out from day to day so you get trapped up easily.

Give a fool enough rope and he hangs himself with it. You are a dishonest bull#ter who just got caught out when he couldn't keep track of his own bull#. I think it is obvious to all present why you are a loser who is on foodstamps and it's not the fault of the Navy, but your own, deceitful bull# artist excuse ridden self.

Game set and match. Now this thread can be closed.

a reply to: NavyDoc

My bad for contributing to thread drift.

Now that you have been called out for being a fraud, you want the thread closed.

Yep.

Thanks for your advice Doc, I think I will go see a VA shrink and see if I can't collect some disability welfare to supplement my food stamps since according to you I have a mental illness.

originally posted by: jrod
What is this 5 pages of personal attacks now? I am human, I got a DUI when I was in the Navy. That hardly makes me a washout. George W. Bush got a DUI and went AWOL and still got an honorable discharge, he also was busted for coke possession at one point in his life, Dick Cheney has had several DUIs.

What the hell does GW and Cheney have to do with this???
You are neither of them.
You are a person that got bounced out of the Navy due to a DUI and refusal to complete the required alcohol program. And now you live off the tax payer. Plain and simple.

originally posted by: jrod
Of course you guys team up on my when I am working for a measly $10 an hour. I work when I can yet still poor enough to collect food stamps.

There is no need to team up. YOU and YOU alone have made this situation. YOU and YOU alone disclosed your situation in life.
All on you.

originally posted by: jrod
I 99ed the ASVAB in high school, took it again when I was 21 with no intention of joining the Army(who I took the test for) and scored a 94 with no prep. I wanted to retake it before I joined the Navy but a 94 is good enough for ANY enlisted job.

Yeah, sure. Okay then.

originally posted by: jrod
I could have been a nuke, but I know better. It is a crappy job. I know a former MM nuke who is now a Major in the Air Force. His child has severe birth defects, this is something that happens occasionally with nukes and the Navy refuses to admit exposure to radiation has anything to do with it. I would have needed a waiver anyway because I got a D in Differential Equations my freshmen year of college, not bad considering I only found the classroom on test days. (I took Calc in highschool). A grade in math less than a C requires a waiver before one can be approved for nuke school. Like I said, I knew better. There are very few enlisted Navy nukes who actually like their job. I was not interested in Spec Ops because I figured my brain is more valuable than my body so I better stick with a nerdy job. In hind sight SWCC would have been a good job for me. (Medically G6PD may have been an issue for me going that route besides)

WOW!!!!! I gotta say you are just a poor mistreated genius. The Navy really should have traded everything just to keep you.
I wonder, what other amazing things have you done??? Rework the Theory of Relativity??

originally posted by: jrod
I wanted to be an AG(aerographer's mate, a meteorologist) but that rate rarely has openings. At the time I enlisted they were offering AV(avionics) for a bonus. I was interested in electronics and aviation, and easy job. Big Navy decided which AV route I went (AE or AT, squad or intermediate level). I became an ATi and was the top of my class in 'I' strand with both sailors and Marines.

Another cool story.

originally posted by: jrod
We were told by our Staff Sergeant instructor that 'I' strand is the toughest 'A' school academically for the Marine Corps. Outside of Nuke School, I think a strong argument can be made 'I' strand is the 2nd toughest A school academically for the Navy. Do not pretend like I had to settle as an AT. Since I am the kind of person who does a lot of self study when something interests me, I feel like my level of understanding of electronics is up and beyond most with an Electrical Engineering degree.

I was lucky because an AT in the COMSEC vault is about one of the best jobs an enlisted man can ask for.

Very cool story bro.

originally posted by: jrod
Still think I am a phoney MacMan? I know what a First Sergeant is without googling it, as I know all of ranks in all the branches. I did not know the Air Force calls their head NCO their First Sergeant. An E-9 in the Air Force is officially called a Chief Master Sergeant.

No, you did not know what a First Sergeant is. Shall I go back several pages where you stated that you in fact didn’t know this?

originally posted by: jrod
Do not forger MacMan, you are the one who initially thought sergeant was a rank in the Navy. Nice try to twist what I wrote in an attempt to make me look stupid

Hey, I never stated I knew Navy rank. Nor did I state I was the best thing to happen to the Military.

originally posted by: jrod
Both of you have brought shame in this to the branches you represent in this thread. No wonder the personal keep in the US military keep getting weaker.

My DD-214 shows an Honorable discharge with multiple ribbons and medals for conduct and service. There is no DUI on it, no failed alcohol rehab, no Article 15s, no LORs…..You really should probably shut your mouth for a little bit and think about how you are going to retort.

originally posted by: jrod
This 5 page hijacking of this thread to attack me started when I asked this question:

What does Promote the General Welfare mean to you?

It is stated within the Documents on this. Go read them.

originally posted by: jrod


Poor me?

Yes, poor JRod.

originally posted by: jrod
As I said, I am one of the luckiest people you will ever meet. Money is not a measure of happiness or success. The US dollar has become a fiat currency that will likely collapse within my lifetime.

Yes, so lucky to have been bounced out of the Navy, only to live off of the taxpayers.

originally posted by: jrod
My life is good. I have freedom and love to learn things.

Yep, all at the behest of the tax payer.

originally posted by: jrod
If I die broke I will still be happy. It is sad to see people work their entire lives, save for retirement and die before they can truly enjoy life.

Yes, very sad that people work and save, only to have their earned money siphoned by the tax leach.

originally posted by: jrod
I actually was against food stamps, but I dated a girl who told me I was foolish for not collecting them. While we have parted ways, I was able to get her to retire the stilettos.

Ahhh, the Hooker with a Heart of Gold story.
Very touching.

originally posted by: jrod
I have had a tax paying job since I was 15. It is not like I have not paid into the Social Security.

It seems like you guys feel that those who collect food stamps need to go to the back of the bus, use separate restrooms and water fountains. Both of you clearly think I am a lesser class of human that you guys.

Nope. Just stop leaching off the system.
It is YOU that has continually stated such things. What is the old adage about deflection and self identification??

originally posted by: Aazadan

Incorrect not being married to an ideal means I can objectively view concepts, I change my opinions on this stuff frequently as new information or results become available. I don't have a predefined ideology to blindly support, well other than my ideology that compromise is always the way to go.

You have no principles to stick to. That is the Progressive way. Not surprised.

originally posted by: Aazadan

That jobs requiring skills still pay minimum wage.

So, go learn a new skill or get better.
Very simple really.
I guess you are mad that the business of selling Ice Blocks via Horse Drawn carriage was displaced due to the refrigerator??

originally posted by: Aazadan

The whole point of government is to invest. Here's one for you, if government particularly the US government is so inept, then why did the majority of the nation support building a government in Iraq? Shouldn't we have just turned the whole place over to private companies?

No, no it is not the business of Govt to invest. Please, go and read any of the founding documents and show me where this is.
And no, we should not be nation building. We should send in the Military to blow stuff up and kill people. Plain and simple. And then we leave.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Our government only sucks at running things because we intentionally hinder it such as what we've done to the Post Office.

You have got to be kidding me. This and this alone shows exactly how bastardized your beliefs are in regards to Govt.
The creation of laws and such was intentionally designed to be slow and difficult.

originally posted by: Aazadan

And am I wrong to think that the jobs should pay enough that I don't have to get government assistance to afford to live? Making the businesses pay a living wage means the taxpayers in general don't have to pay it.

Jobs should pay the going rate, as determined by the Market and the Business.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Envy and greed? Not at all. My greed extends as far as believing a person should be able to sustain themselves on a wage. Minimum wage and all wages in general have declined significantly over the past 35 years. I want that trend to reverse.

Very cute.
So, you have no issue with millionaires I take it.

originally posted by: Aazadan

So now you're against a 1% consumption tax on just a subset of products as a complete replacement to the income tax. Brilliant. I really think you're only against this one because I'm the one saying it.

I am against taxation of certain subsects of people, or certain businesses.
You are not for “fair”. You are for social and economic justice as spelled out by every Progressive out there.

a reply to: jrod

Oh, so you couldn't come up with the STU-II and STU-III phones??? Which are now outdated and have been replaced with better technologies???


You are the most full of crap person here.

originally posted by: macman
You have no principles to stick to. That is the Progressive way. Not surprised.

I have plenty of principles, I'm just not blinded by them like you are. Why should my principles carry more weight than those of anyone else and be written into law?

originally posted by: Aazadan
I guess you are mad that the business of selling Ice Blocks via Horse Drawn carriage was displaced due to the refrigerator??

Not at all, to give you more modern day examples however, burger machines in fast food joints or robot waiters in restaurants. I have no problem with either of these, if the job is going to use a human it needs to pay a wage appropriate for a human.

originally posted by: Aazadan
And no, we should not be nation building. We should send in the Military to blow stuff up and kill people. Plain and simple. And then we leave.

Nation building is unfortunately the only way to run a war these days. If you just blow things up and leave you're going to create a power vacuum that just makes the problem worse. Our problem in Iraq for example (ignoring that we never should have gone in, in the first place) is that we didn't have the stomach to finish it. We left knowing the country would collapse when we left. Iraq should have been a 50+ year project if we were going to stay, but no one had the willpower for that. Instead we got the worst possible result of going in, losing lives/money over fighting, and then pulling out to let it deteriorate once the hard work was done.

originally posted by: Aazadan
You have got to be kidding me. This and this alone shows exactly how bastardized your beliefs are in regards to Govt.
The creation of laws and such was intentionally designed to be slow and difficult.

What does the creation of laws have to do with management? Laws are at best regulatory, there's more to management than that.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Jobs should pay the going rate, as determined by the Market and the Business.

Jobs currently aren't paying the going rate though. They're paying less than the going rate because the government is having to subsidize the corporations. In order for jobs to pay a fair rate, and for the government to be able to step back the minimum wage needs to be increased. This is game theory in action, companies won't voluntarily raise the wages on their own.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Very cute.
So, you have no issue with millionaires I take it.

As a generalized group? Not at all, I even like them because it shows that one can be successful.

originally posted by: Aazadan
I am against taxation of certain subsects of people, or certain businesses.
You are not for “fair”. You are for social and economic justice as spelled out by every Progressive out there.

The problem with your methodology is that those on the bottom literally can't pay the same rates as those on the top. When 100% of your income goes to food and rent, how do you pay 10%? What about 15%? As disposable income goes up the amount of money available to pay in a flat tax also goes up. If you limit rates to what those on the bottom can pay you're not even going to end up with enough money to pay for a single fighter jet per year, with 100% of tax revenues.

a reply to: macman

Keep up with the strawman attacks.


Your NavyDoc buddy was most definitely trying to phish personal information out of me.


We are getting close to 10 pages of personal attacks over 1 DUI I got years ago. That is absolutely ridiculous. Most readers of this forum realize that you have no real counter to the points I make so you resort to personal attacks and other disinfo practices.


It is not working. Hell according to NavyDoc I have some mental issues. If this is true then I will qualify for more welfare!!!

a reply to: jrod

Bud....you couldn't answer a simple question that ANYONE in Crypto would know.

YOU and YOU alone brought YOUR DUI into play.

YOU and YOU alone have offered up all the personal info.

YOU and YOU alone refused to complete the alchy program.

YOU and YOU alone made the decision to leach off the tax payer.

YOU and YOU alone stated you refused to work a job at fast food. You must be SOO beneath it.

ALL of YOUR issues in life are due to YOU and YOUR decisions. Plain and simple.

But, as we get back on topic, it is one good thing that 0bama has done....that is cut welfare programs.

originally posted by: Aazadan

I have plenty of principles, I'm just not blinded by them like you are. Why should my principles carry more weight than those of anyone else and be written into law?

You have little in the world of Principles. If you do, you must break them often to back the BS that you do.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Not at all, to give you more modern day examples however, burger machines in fast food joints or robot waiters in restaurants. I have no problem with either of these, if the job is going to use a human it needs to pay a wage appropriate for a human.

And the appropriate wage is driven by the market.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Nation building is unfortunately the only way to run a war these days. If you just blow things up and leave you're going to create a power vacuum that just makes the problem worse.

No. That is the war Progressives and the Govt based Corps sell it as.
The Military is there for 2 things. Blow # up and kill people.
The US tax payer should not be paying for roads and a new Govt in foreign lands.
We go in, we level, we leave.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Our problem in Iraq for example (ignoring that we never should have gone in, in the first place) is that we didn't have the stomach to finish it.

The Military did. The Govt and the Progressives did not want to finish the job. The job was to go in, decimate the area and leave.

originally posted by: Aazadan
We left knowing the country would collapse when we left. Iraq should have been a 50+ year project if we were going to stay, but no one had the willpower for that. Instead we got the worst possible result of going in, losing lives/money over fighting, and then pulling out to let it deteriorate once the hard work was done.

We should have turned it to a sheet of glass in the desert and called it a day.

originally posted by: Aazadan

What does the creation of laws have to do with management? Laws are at best regulatory, there's more to management than that.

And this is the primary example of just how grossly inaccurate you are. The Govt is not there to “manage” people. Unless you have bought into the ideals of the Progressive, which you seem to have taken the whole kit.
The Govt was never created to “manage” people.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Jobs currently aren't paying the going rate though. They're paying less than the going rate because the government is having to subsidize the corporations. In order for jobs to pay a fair rate, and for the government to be able to step back the minimum wage needs to be increased. This is game theory in action, companies won't voluntarily raise the wages on their own.

No, as the wage offered is the going rate. Just because you don’t think it is fair, doesn’t mean it isn’t the fair rate.
The minimum wage increase does nothing. It raises the pay slightly, then costs rise, then pay for others rise and the curve has gone upwards as a total.
You have achieved nothing but pandering to a voting bloc. Hence, buying votes.

originally posted by: Aazadan
As a generalized group? Not at all, I even like them because it shows that one can be successful.

Except they must be taxed at a higher rate.

originally posted by: Aazadan

The problem with your methodology is that those on the bottom literally can't pay the same rates as those on the top.

So, it isn’t about actually being fair. It is all about social and economic justice.
It is not my problem if someone can’t pay a flat 15%, just like everyone else.
See, you still think “others” need to pay the way for those on the bottom. NO!! If taxes are not punitive in nature, and are just to fund the Govt for all of us, then EVERYONE needs to pay the same rate. That is fair.

originally posted by: Aazadan
When 100% of your income goes to food and rent, how do you pay 10%? What about 15%? As disposable income goes up the amount of money available to pay in a flat tax also goes up. If you limit rates to what those on the bottom can pay you're not even going to end up with enough money to pay for a single fighter jet per year, with 100% of tax revenues.

Not my problem.
My money shouldn’t be siphoned more just to offset someone’s financial decisions.
Again, Progressives always love being fair, until they have to contribute. Then the rules change.

originally posted by: macman
You have little in the world of Principles. If you do, you must break them often to back the BS that you do.

As I just said, I have plenty of principals and I live by them. They just happen to be different from yours, and I don't believe I have the right to legislate my principals just because they happen to be what I believe. Compromise is important.

originally posted by: Aazadan
And the appropriate wage is driven by the market.

In a completely free market all employee wages drift down to zero. Outside controls must exist to prevent this, otherwise labor becomes cheaper by the day.

originally posted by: Aazadan
No. That is the war Progressives and the Govt based Corps sell it as.
The Military is there for 2 things. Blow # up and kill people.
The US tax payer should not be paying for roads and a new Govt in foreign lands.
We go in, we level, we leave.

And when we leave what happens? The act of bringing in the military radicalizes the population, it gives them a reason to fight. After destroying a government and leaving a warlord eventually takes control and attempts revenge. In modern times that takes the form of terrorism. It would take 10 people less than a million dollars in funding to lock down the entire country and cause trillions of dollars in damage in lost commerce and military expenditures. Our only way to fight back against such a scenario is to prevent the power vacuum from forming. That's what was attempted in Iraq but even then our use of the military to simply blow things up has left Iraq, the region, and our country in a worse position.

originally posted by: Aazadan
The Military did. The Govt and the Progressives did not want to finish the job. The job was to go in, decimate the area and leave.

That creates many future problems. Among others it practically guarantees the creation of a terrorist state giving terrorist groups access to nation level benefits such as the issuing of currency. Do you realize what a disaster it would be if we were to effectively give terrorist groups unlimited funding by doing that?

originally posted by: Aazadan
We should have turned it to a sheet of glass in the desert and called it a day.

That turns the moderates and ordinary citizens into future adversaries.

No, as the wage offered is the going rate. Just because you don’t think it is fair, doesn’t mean it isn’t the fair rate.
The minimum wage increase does nothing. It raises the pay slightly, then costs rise, then pay for others rise and the curve has gone upwards as a total.
You have achieved nothing but pandering to a voting bloc. Hence, buying votes.

The cost of labor doesn't make up 100% of the costs of a product. Increasing the cost of labor therefore isn't a proportional increase in the cost of the product. The general estimate by those opposed to an increase in the minimum wage is that an increase of 102% from $7.45 to $15 would result in the cost of goods going up by 37.5%. Taking that argument at face value, that means an increase in purchasing power for those on the bottom of 47%. Those at the top see reduced purchasing power of 37.5% exchange but that's a good thing. Wealth inequality is currently too high, and it results in an overall increased purchasing power of society (47% added, 37.5% removed).

Except they must be taxed at a higher rate.

They were only in a position to make that money in the first place thanks to the countries infrastructure and opportunities. Asking them to give a bit back, especially if they've made enough that they can afford it is hardly unfair.

originally posted by: Aazadan
So, it isn’t about actually being fair. It is all about social and economic justice.
It is not my problem if someone can’t pay a flat 15%, just like everyone else.
See, you still think “others” need to pay the way for those on the bottom. NO!! If taxes are not punitive in nature, and are just to fund the Govt for all of us, then EVERYONE needs to pay the same rate. That is fair.

Where did I say anything about social or economic justice? It's simply a reality, people who have little don't have any wealth to tax away. The bottom 52% of americans have less combined than the top 400 people. Those 52% whether you tax them at 1% or 100% simply aren't contributing enough to provide any usable amount of money to the government. Those on the absolute bottom don't have the money in the first place because 100% of their income is going to food and rent. Any taxed provided by those people simply gets given back in food stamps.

As far as fairness goes, those that get a bigger benefit should have to pay more, right? I would say becoming a millionaire is a pretty big benefit. The person who lives in poverty? Not so much benefit. Why should they pay the same rate?

a reply to: Aazadan

All I read is every BS Progressive and Socialist retread statement every used.
Nothing really left to retort with.

You are a Progressive. Can't really correct anything with you until you embrace freedom and liberty for ALL US citizens, not just those in a lower class.

a reply to: macman

In other words you can't respond to points, all you can do is revert to what you've done through this entire exchange and call things liberal or progressive without debating the points.

And to think you said I was the one using Alinsky tactics.

a reply to: Aazadan

What is there to respond to???

All of your points are driven by the Progressive ideals in life, or Socialist.

For example, this idea that a person has become wealthy, all because the Govt built roads to their company is one of the lamest and most used by any Socialist I have come across.
The Wealthy person does not use the roads, emergency services or what have you any more then anyone else.
You have basically echoed the 0bama shining turd of "You didn't build that". Just polished it up a little.

And just because someone has pushed their monthly income to 100% of their out going funds, does not mean in any way that they should not be paying their "fair share" like everyone else.

There really is no need to go point by point any longer. Your a Progressive. You use Progressive and Socialist arguing points to defend your crap.

Your suggested business model shows very little in results, as you yourself have stated you are not a successful business owner. And the drivel you pull from was not exactly written by someone that was successful in business either.

On top of that, you willfully reside in a City/Town that has no employment, yet bitch and moan that you can't find a job. Only to state you live there because it is cheap. Well, cheap is nice, unless you have no money.


So, let's rehash....
Failed and failing Progressive ideology.
Failed and failing business practices.
Failed and failing individual based income practices.
Failed and failing aspect on personal responsibility.

What else is there to discuss?? You don't offer anything that is successful.....or working??
Waxing the light fantastic is awesome, to a point...


Unless you have something new to contribute.

a reply to: Aazadan

Oh, and you are no Liberal. And I don't use that term often, as it has specific meaning behind it, which does not apply here.

originally posted by: macman
For example, this idea that a person has become wealthy, all because the Govt built roads to their company is one of the lamest and most used by any Socialist I have come across.
The Wealthy person does not use the roads, emergency services or what have you any more then anyone else.
You have basically echoed the 0bama shining turd of "You didn't build that". Just polished it up a little.

I'm glad you brought up "You didn't build that", because that's one of the few things I agree with Obama on. The owner of a company certainly contributed but their employees and more importantly their customers are the ones that really built the business.

As far as not using the roads goes, a company which makes a person rich gets to take advantage of the infrastructure. If your business was built in the middle of Rwanda it would do much worse because you don't have ready access to a large American market and it's ability to transport goods, or a local clientele with money to spend. Those are benefits the nation has provided you, and by virtue of the fact you were able to become rich, those are benefits you have profited from. Giving back in such a situation is completely fair.

And just because someone has pushed their monthly income to 100% of their out going funds, does not mean in any way that they should not be paying their "fair share" like everyone else.

It's less about what they should be paying and more about what they're able to pay. If someone has disposable income of $50/month it's simply an impossibility for them to pay $75/month in taxes.

Your suggested business model shows very little in results, as you yourself have stated you are not a successful business owner. And the drivel you pull from was not exactly written by someone that was successful in business either.

Yep, I'm not a successful business owner. I still need more of an education before I start my company. One day I hope to be one. I'm not aware who I'm pulling my drivel from though as I make it a point to avoid listening to talking points on the TV. Perhaps you would like to tell me?

On top of that, you willfully reside in a City/Town that has no employment, yet bitch and moan that you can't find a job. Only to state you live there because it is cheap. Well, cheap is nice, unless you have no money.

Yep, it's called being responsible. This way I pay $14000/year for education, room, and board rather than rather than $40,000 which means I don't have to take loans. I'm actually looking forward to the summer when I get to intern at a real job (though it's still minimum wage sadly), until then I'll keep saying there are no jobs available because it's true.

Failed and failing Progressive ideology.

That's funny because the actual leftists on this board and elsewhere say I'm conservative. Personally I don't identify with the Socialists, Progressives, Communists, or Liberals. Political compasses usually but me right in the center, with a very tiny right slant But you're welcome to call it whatever you want, I find arguing over what predefined category I fit into to be asinine as I have a real dislike for all political parties.

Failed and failing business practices.

Never tried, I'm still working on it. I hope to be successful one day but I realize what the odds are.

Failed and failing individual based income practices.

Yep... disability+food stamps+job (the job actually costs me money due to how disability is set up). I would love for that to be 100% funded through employment, but the opportunities aren't there and I have real medical issues to get past... hence the reason I've been in school so long in order to maybe be self employed one day.

Failed and failing aspect on personal responsibility.

We'll just have to disagree there as I work quite hard at giving myself the ability to one day be independent.

a reply to: Aazadan

Sure sure then. Sure sure.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: poncho1982
Dude, poor is poor. it doesn't matter WHEN it was, if you can't afford something, you can't afford it. Time is irrelevant.

I'm still not well off, I struggle everyday, But the difference is, I'm PROUD to struggle. I just took the plunge and sank all of my savings into starting my own business. So, I'll be struggling for a while, probably even worse, but I am trying to better myself. THAT is my whole point.

It's commendable that you did that but I think there's some disconnect here. You were well off enough to have savings in the first place.

No, I struggled to save that money. I didn't buy frivolous items that I didn't need. I made good choices.

I was personally responsible.