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

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.

I entirely agree that dependency is bad, and we should avoid it as a culture.

But when you have an entire economic model based on finding ways of cheating people who are willing to work for a living so a few can live high on the hog, you are almost asking people to become dependent, are you not?

This is the point I've put out there a bunch of times, and Republicans usually head for the tall grass when I point it out for some reason.
 
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.

Why not resurrect your thread? I think it would be a good continuing exercise.
 
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.

I entirely agree that dependency is bad, and we should avoid it as a culture.

But when you have an entire economic model based on finding ways of cheating people who are willing to work for a living so a few can live high on the hog, you are almost asking people to become dependent, are you not?

This is the point I've put out there a bunch of times, and Republicans usually head for the tall grass when I point it out for some reason.

NO ONE but you is talking about cheating...but exercising thier free will and thought...but that escapes YOU. :eusa_hand:

It's YOUR excuse to vote for Obama...again.
 
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.

I entirely agree that dependency is bad, and we should avoid it as a culture.

But when you have an entire economic model based on finding ways of cheating people who are willing to work for a living so a few can live high on the hog, you are almost asking people to become dependent, are you not?

This is the point I've put out there a bunch of times, and Republicans usually head for the tall grass when I point it out for some reason.

The fact that few Republicans agree with your thesis is not running for the tall grass. Based on my interpretation of a number of your posts on other threads, you are opposed to economic freedom and want the government to dictate what the big corporations are required to do for and pay their people. I see the price of loss of personal liberty, innovation, inspiration, creativity, choices, options, opportunities in order to accomplish that as being far too high a price to pay for whatever dubious benefits might be realized.

Going back to the thread title, if animals can easily get food furnished by others through little or no effort of their own, they quickly forget how to get food when they are on their own in the wild. That is why it is so difficult to raise normally wild creatures in captivity and then expect them to be successful when released into the wild.

If we go with your theory that corporations should be required to pay executives less and the rank and file more, what incentive is there to acquire the skill, experience, talent, and ability to manage a large corporation? I can't think of ANY other occupation that requires the high degree of skill sets as that a successful CEO of a megavcorporation has to have.

And if the rank and file is guaranteed a range of salary and benefits regardless of their productivity or value to the corporation, what incentive is there for them to make their contribution valuable enough to earn that salary and benefits?

It's so much easier to just accept the automatic salary and benefits than it is to actually put in the effort to earn them.

And that is why in such situations productivity, initiative, ambition, and innovation invariably is decreased and the economy becomes stagnant and/or unsustainable.
 
So poor Americans are animals that need to be starved?????

Why not just "let them die"?
 
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)
Keep it up. This kinda talk is going to cause the GOP a huge loss in November.
 
FACT: More than 33% of adults who earn less than $15,000 per year were obese, compared with 24.6% of those who earn at least $50,000 per year.
The Connection Between Obesity and Poverty - Real Time Economics - WSJ

FACT working burns calories... watching TV and eating does not.

FACT: If teenagers don't have a job how can they get experience?
70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers. [1]

Unemployment in 2006 (teenage) was 4.4%, there was a steady minimum wage. In 2009, after a few minimum wage increases, teenage unemployment was 10.2%. [2]
Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers.

Debate: Minimum wage increases raise unemployment | Debate.org

Consequently it is a death spiral!
Higher minimum wages mean less jobs more automation.
Less wages means less employed on which employers are taxed FUTA for unemployment insurance.
Less unemployment premiums being paid because there are less workers means more govt. subsidization of unemployment funds AND more people filing for unemployment.

Death spiral of our economy as less people are working paying less federal taxes, less social security less Medicare less FUTA...
DEATH SPIRAL
 
BUT remember this is all part of Obama's plan for Democrats.
Make more people dependent on the government.
Means more votes and sometime if he's re-elected in his 2nd term he'll push for the abolishing the Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States.
Because the country needs Obama for a 3rd term!

He gets elected he will push for it!
 
After all Obama IS the MESSIAH.. he is a God as the Editor of NewsWeek said:

" I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God." – NewsWeek Editor Evan Thomas.

Or as Chris Mathews said..
Last night[2/13/08] during MSNBC's Potomac Primary coverage, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann were discussing Barack Obama's speech. Matthews — who, in the past, has both cried over an Obama speech and compared him to Jesus — described exactly what happens to him when Obama speaks
"I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often.
Chris Matthews: "I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg" As Obama Spoke


I mean seriously HOW can we NOT re-elect Jesus II???
 
This is more evidence that conservatives want to widen the gap between rich and poor.

Take away food stamps, the poor get poorer. Cut taxes because food stamps no longer have to be paid for,

the rich get richer.

This is conservative economic policy in a nutshell. Make the poor poorer and pass the savings along to the rich.

The poor do not get poorer without food stamps. They are equally poor with and without because the food stamps come from someone else's earnings and not the earnings of the poor.
 
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.


So the people who get welfare work for the government. Do tell what services they provide!
 
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.


So the people who get welfare work for the government. Do tell what services they provide!

At any rate, when I work for the other guy at a regular job, the value of my work exceeds what my employer pays to keep me there including my salary, benefits including healthcare, plus add-ons my employer must pay that can include FICA, SUTA, FUTA, work comp, liability insurance, bonds, sometimes licenses and fees, etc. If the value of my work does not significantly exceed all that, the employer has no reason to hire me at all.

I don't see it as a dependency thing in any sense. I have expertise, experience, talent, ability, skills, character, and a work ethic to sell and my employer will be willing to buy my expertise, experience, talent, ability, skills, character and work ethic. It will be mutually beneficial to us both. I get nothing I didn't work for. He pays nothing that he doesn't owe.

At any rate, my working for the other guy takes no money out of anybody's pocket.
 
Last edited:
Every time I think I've heard the worst these rw fools can spout, the prove me wrong yet again.

This is right up there with the worst.

I'm so ashamed of this selfish and compassion-less part of our country. This is not what the US is all about. Its what the 1% is but not the rest of us.

What are we coming to?

And, I'll bet that you vile rw's call yourselves "Christians".
 
Every time I think I've heard the worst these rw fools can spout, the prove me wrong yet again.

This is right up there with the worst.

I'm so ashamed of this selfish and compassion-less part of our country. This is not what the US is all about. Its what the 1% is but not the rest of us.

What are we coming to?

And, I'll bet that you vile rw's call yourselves "Christians".

They're Situational Christians.
 
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.


So the people who get welfare work for the government. Do tell what services they provide!

Many people who get food stamps work full time jobs. In fact US servicemen and their families have at times qualified for food stamps.
 

Forum List

Back
Top