Feeding animals causes dependency..46 million americans on food stamps

[gallantwarrior]

MORE EVIDENCE that Obama administration WANTS Americans Dependent on the government EVEN though THEY KNOW IT IS NOT in Americans long term best interest!

Making Americans dependent OK..
The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever.
About 46.514 million Americans received aid, up from 46.286 million in November, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said today in an e-mail. Participation was 5.5 percent higher than a year earlier.
No one should go hungry in America. FNS provides children and low-income people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education. We help nearly one in four people. Check out our programs to see if we can help you or your family.
Food & Nutrition Service Home Page

Making Animals Dependent NOT OK!
Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to "please do not feed the animals" because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.

"Please remember that feeding wildlife encourages “begging” and dependency on humans.
The larger the animal, the more assertive animals become in demanding food from humans. Always use food lockers to prevent bears and other wildlife from pillaging your food supply. "
Whiskeytown National Recreational Area - Frequently Asked Questions (U.S. National Park Service)

Wow. I mean, the fact you can't see the ass-pounding stupidity of your own post is kind of telling.

I personally am horrified that we have 46 million people on Food Stamps. I'm even more horrified that 40% of them have jobs that don't make enough where they can reliably put food on the table.

But whose fault is that.

Who busted up the unions and the good paying union jobs?

Who insisted on the free trade treaties that sent a lot of the good manufacturing jobs to third world countries?

Who changed the tax code to move the burden away from the wealthy and onto the working class?

You guys on the right who complain about the "Welfare people" while taking your own middle class benefits, are laughable to me.

I agree with you on one point, it is pretty horrifying that 46 million people are incapable or unwilling to feed themselves.

 

[kaz]

it is pretty horrifying that 46 million people are incapable or unwilling to feed themselves.

How many of them have homes, cars, air conditioning, color TVs do you suppose? How many of them are overweight?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Not the intent and you know it.

Once again it was an expression in support of the free lunch.

The government in national parks tell us not to feed animals as they may become dependent on the handouts...but demand that we subsidize people who can be independent on thier own, become dependent on the government and others.

The government talks out of both sides of thier mouths...

So, what's being pointed out is that government views animals as more capable than people?

 

[gallantwarrior]

This is obamas economic policy. There isn't one reason, it's a number of reasons all followed by obama's policies. This might be just unfortunate, but since it's obama's intent to crash the economy it is reprehensible. It's right there in Cloward-Piven, step by step and he's doing it.

The stupidity in this statement is mindboggling.

How does a crashed economy get Obama re elected? Or will you now claim that Obama does not want to get re elected, he just wants to crash the economy?

The dead and the animated do not need to eat, the other obamabots would vote for him because they are too stupid, or too blinded by his white that there is no other course of action open to them.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Once again it was an expression in support of the free lunch.

The government in national parks tell us not to feed animals as they may become dependent on the handouts...but demand that we subsidize people who can be independent on thier own, become dependent on the government and others.

The government talks out of both sides of thier mouths...

Naw.

They tell people not to feed the animals because the animals will eventually attack them.

Man you guys are rich.

Animals attacking stupid people is bad in what way?

 

[Douger]

The plan is to use Walmart's for your feeding stations. Yeah. I'm serious.
Walmart is the ultimate in food distribution (and vaccinations, eyeglasses etc)

 

[gallantwarrior]

And who could be more dependent on guvmint handouts than mega farmers and oil companies?
And they are making plenty of money and still suck from the guvmint teat. Why don't you rethug assholes demand that the hand outs to oil companies end? Are you rethugs even aware of how much money is given to oil corporations that report record profits, year after year.

Yes. And the mega-farmers are some of obama's biggest contributors, as are the Wall Street bankers and brokers, and the big unions' leadership. Corporate welfare is just as abhorrent as individual welfare, and it costs the taxpayer much more. But until we can get campaign finance reform pushed through (figure the odds, since all the hogs feed at that trough), we will have the best government that can be bought.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Bush DID crash the economy.

And yes I keep tellin you that Obama is just another Bush term.

You want a fourth Bush term then?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I love it when people who are dependent on a corporation for their livelihood, their healthcare, their food, their shelter, their transportation, their entertainment, their children's education, and on and on,

starting ranting about the evils of dependency, and somehow then blaming it on the government.

Might have something to do with the fact that we are a free enterprise capitalist society, where we depend on one another,and not one that is RULED by our government.

But you knew that, hunh?

I hope you haven't bet any money on that!

 

[gallantwarrior]

SNAP is also an important part of agriwelfare.

With regard to migrant farm workers, for example, there are special eligibility criteria for food stamps for migrant workers to ensure they stay on the job; corporate agriculture has no desire to see SNAP go away.

Or, you can ‘get rid’ of SNAP if you want to, but prepared to pay $50 for a head of lettuce.

Corporate agriculture needs to go away. Period. I'm all for cutting subsidies to those huge agri-concerns. They do no good for the people who need good, wholesome food. They do great good for the pols who accept their contributions in exchange for the corporate welfare dispensed to their benefit.

 

[gallantwarrior]

MORE EVIDENCE that Obama administration WANTS Americans Dependent on the government EVEN though THEY KNOW IT IS NOT in Americans long term best interest!

Making Americans dependent OK..
The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever.
About 46.514 million Americans received aid, up from 46.286 million in November, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said today in an e-mail. Participation was 5.5 percent higher than a year earlier.
No one should go hungry in America. FNS provides children and low-income people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education. We help nearly one in four people. Check out our programs to see if we can help you or your family.
Food & Nutrition Service Home Page

Making Animals Dependent NOT OK!
Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to "please do not feed the animals" because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.

"Please remember that feeding wildlife encourages “begging” and dependency on humans.
The larger the animal, the more assertive animals become in demanding food from humans. Always use food lockers to prevent bears and other wildlife from pillaging your food supply. "
Whiskeytown National Recreational Area - Frequently Asked Questions (U.S. National Park Service)

As an independent conservative, I find your comparison between those on foodstamps and animals to be pretty damned offensive.

The left often have difficulty differentiating between individuals, due to their group think. Now, they think that all conservatives think like you do.

Idiot.

So I take it YOU HAVE NO problem in food stamps creating more dependency?
99 weeks unemployment giving people dependency and NOT taking lesser jobs that may be beneath their education or dignity.. but OK for these people to take food stamps/unemployment ALL the while there are jobs for them!
And you are ok with their continual dependency?

So much for their "dignity". People who would sit on the public dole, living off the largess of strangers extorted by government, have NO dignity. They are lower than the animals in the forest.

 

[Sallow]

The government in national parks tell us not to feed animals as they may become dependent on the handouts...but demand that we subsidize people who can be independent on thier own, become dependent on the government and others.

The government talks out of both sides of thier mouths...

Naw.

They tell people not to feed the animals because the animals will eventually attack them.

Man you guys are rich.

Animals attacking stupid people is bad in what way?

This is what I love about you "choose life" types.

You are endlessly entertaining.

 

[Sallow]

As an independent conservative, I find your comparison between those on foodstamps and animals to be pretty damned offensive.

The left often have difficulty differentiating between individuals, due to their group think. Now, they think that all conservatives think like you do.

Idiot.

So I take it YOU HAVE NO problem in food stamps creating more dependency?
99 weeks unemployment giving people dependency and NOT taking lesser jobs that may be beneath their education or dignity.. but OK for these people to take food stamps/unemployment ALL the while there are jobs for them!
And you are ok with their continual dependency?

So much for their "dignity". People who would sit on the public dole, living off the largess of strangers extorted by government, have NO dignity. They are lower than the animals in the forest.

Well said.

Which unhabited Island did you settle and now live on?

 

[gallantwarrior]

it is pretty horrifying that 46 million people are incapable or unwilling to feed themselves.

How many of them have homes, cars, air conditioning, color TVs do you suppose? How many of them are overweight?

My guess, way too many to justify feeding them on my dime. I salvage abandoned animals and own livestock...I'd rather feed the animals. They have more dignity and are definitely more grateful.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You got it all wrong. It's Republicans who moved the nation's wealth to the top 1%.

Republicans who believe in "trickle down".

Republicans who believe in lower taxes for the rich and zero for corporations.

You can't have actions that say one thing and then come up with a bizarre conclusion. People will suspect you think education is for snobs and you don't want smart people to run the country.

THINK for a moment...

I ASSUME because you are so defensive of the poor you are poor RIGHT?
And IF YOU don't have the following it isn't because you are poor BUT STUPID!

1) You being poor can get up to $200/month FREE FOOD
2) You can get Section 8 housing paying up to $1,000/month RENT!
3) Medicaid gets you FREE health care/medication etc.
4) Poor meaning when you file YOU GET BACK instead of paying $3,000+ EIC!
5) Being poor you get free dental from free clinics.
6) Being poor and using JUST ONE of above services --GET FREE CELL PHONE!
7) YOU can get FREE Wifi Internet..

ALL because YOU ARE POOR!

Tell me the evil GOP... and making all the 1% wealthy why are you getting all the above for FREE then? Where is the money coming from to pay you over $26,000 in tax credits/rent/food/cell phone services?

YOU being poor and evidently stupid have access to a lifestyle the richest person in the world in 1901 could imagine and couldn't have !

YOU are living as a"poor person" at such a high standard of living (ALL FREE MIND YOU) that in much of the 3rd world countries your life style would be considered
as 1% of their lifestyle!
And YOU get it FOR FREE all because YOU ARE POOR!

I object! It isn't FREE for me. I get to foot the bill for this "poor" person.

 

[Londoner]

What a load of BS. The best lies have a sliver of truth, and a sliver is all the truth in this lie.

Do you know the technology that went into the moon race? Do you know how that technology was funded? Do you know the history of Boeing?

Do you know the Cold War relationship between the Government and Stanford, or Government and MIT? Do you know the research and technology that came out of these partnerships? - or how they were handed to private industry? Do you know where and how the technology for the internet was developed? Commerce comes from a complicated relationship between the private sector and government. You should at least study the infrastructure costs of the modern industrial state - roads, bridges, dams, public works, water, electricity, etc, etc. Police protection of the private property system which under grids the market. You should also look into the R&D funded by the taxpayer.

Do you know the legal and regulatory infrastructure required for just one futures market? Do you know what it costs, and who pays? Do you understand the volume of transactions on just Wall Street - and the legal infrastructure provided by government to ensure the necessary level of predictability for commerce to happen in the first place? Have you ever studied this? Consider the legal infrastructure to protect every private party transaction in just one day. [Most "Talk Radio" Republicans can't speak to any of this? They literally repeat these 2nd grade simplifications about the Free Market that we all learned in 10th grade, but that can't explain the legal, physical, regulatory, and civil infrastructure of the modern industrial state. The have one analytical tool, and it's called "socialism", which they use to describe everything they don't like about government - but they lack specificity. To test my theory about how little they know, ask them to explain the public legal costs of maintaining the property or real estate system or derivatives market. Ask them the public costs of protecting homes and businesses. [Do you know the public policing costs of protecting wealthy homes in urban areas? Have you ever seen these numbers?]

We're not even talking about the millions of minute transactions or the legal infrastructure just the state of California has to ensure that the most populous state has water and electricity. These systems are beyond massive, and even where they have private inputs, they are massively dependent on government provided infrastructure.

It will never be profitable for a company or group of companies to build the Hoover Dam or the water aquifers that a modern industrial state requires. Government is the only thing large enough. Ask a Republican voter any of this and you will get a blank stare. This is why they're such easy marks for Talk Radio, because they can't even imagine the ways that they are dependent on government. Or what about the Pentagon costs required to police and stabilize the global market system. Go into Walmart and read the labels on the products. You will find things that come from unstable regions - regions that must be militarily "stabalized". Do you know the costs of stabilizing just the middle east, so the domestic and global market can have the necessary energy inputs? Government does all of this.

At the very least, you should look into how WWII war manufacturing - sponsored by the taxpayer - was converted to domestic commercial uses, and seeded to the private sector. Government laid the foundation for decades of postwar manufacturing growth.

AIG is larger than the Edinburgh Adam Smith grew up in. We no longer live simply and completely on a quaint main street with noble small businesses. We live in world of businesses that have anti-competitive monopoly leverage by virtue of their size and market share. These corporations have the money to buy elections and laws - and they exercise that right on behalf of their share holders; and they wouldn't exist if they didn't.

You're naive. You're talking about a form of capitalism that no longer exists.

Business in America has depended on infrastructure and subsidies from the beginning. Please do some research.

 

[deasyp]

I find this all so tremendously entertaining. We live in a situation comedy mentality country. All problems should be solved in 30 minutes or less-we don't have the attention span for anything longer than that. I grew up pretty much lower middle class in the ultra liberal family (there were folk singers, for God's sakes). I became more conservative as I went to college (paid for by me-yes, I repaid all of my college loans) got a great job and paid a lot of taxes (I guess I never found all of those loopholes I keep hearing about from the liberals). Now I am currently registered as an independent. The truth is, this coming presidential election will not be settled by relevant issues. It will be decided by which sound byte is fresh in the minds of the voters. Will it be "etch-a-sketch" or will it be Hillary Rosen's "Ann Romney never worked a day in her life"? My guess it will be some other entertaining non issue sound byte TBD.

The problem is both political parties. They exist purely for the proliferation of the parties. There is a lot of money at stake. The truth is, I would vote for the first candidate who would sincerely give some credit-any credit-to something the opposite party did or said-IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

I don't think anybody is seriously advocating starving people. Yes it is true that feeding animals is not a good idea. However, giving away things to people for free will indeed make them more dependent. How many of us in this country mindlessly give dollar bills to the people begging at traffic intersections holding their "will work for food" signs? Try telling one of them you have a job for them-you will pay them $20 to rake your leaves, sweep your driveway-you get the idea. I imagine you will have very few or no takers on your offer. I think they even have a union now. Where I live, they all wear reflective vests.

I can think of nothing more humiliating or injurious to one's self esteem than needing food stamps. How about this concept. If you deserve that hardship, I have no problem with it. But perform some service in return for that money. It is actually healthy for your psyche. Clean up the highways. If you are a single mom with kids, perhaps your skill set would be to work in a locally state funded day care center. Or am I being to cruel to suggest such a travesty? How about some common sense?

 

[Truthmatters]

feeding hungry citizens is good for any economy in the long run.

hungry people make for sick people

Sick people cost money



If you have no heart than at least use your head and face facts

 

[Lovebears65]

This one got negged for referring to the poor as animals.

And why are they so poor, whose polices put them this way. Just saying

 

[Foxfyre]

obama is making poverty as part of his economic goas. Part of the reason more people need food assistance is because prices are so high, they can't buy today what they did six months ago. They have the same amount of money to spend but the dollar has lost its purchasing power. Now they can't make ends meet.

This is obamas economic policy. There isn't one reason, it's a number of reasons all followed by obama's policies. This might be just unfortunate, but since it's obama's intent to crash the economy it is reprehensible. It's right there in Cloward-Piven, step by step and he's doing it.

An interesting observation, and I think one that all thoughtful Americans ought to at least think about and consider. The Left of course will resent any such suggestion regarding their appointed messiah, and indeed the concept may be flawed, but I have no reasoned rebuttal for it.

I recently started a discussion on 'free stuff'--the thread is now inactive but I'm considering bumping it because I am seeing a very dangerous culture shift that, if it is not checked, will destroy the democratic republic that the Founders gave us.

Free stuff is powerfully addictive. Even those who initially reject it on philosophical grounds, once they get it whether voluntarily or it is forced upon them, it is very difficult to muster the courage to give it up.

The problem is that the government only consumes and redistributes. It creates nothing. It produces nothing. Whatever it consumes and/or redistributes has to be confiscated from somebody else's productivity. And when those consuming and getting the free stuff significantly outnumber the producers, we are dead ducks as far as being a free people is concerned. We will have returned to the 'monarchy' in which the government assigns our rights and orders or lives as it sees fit--the very type of government our Constitution was intended to free us from.

Is a totally dependent and therefore controllable population the goal of Obama and those who support him? It is looking more and more all the time that it is.