Food stamps for college students

[Shogun]

Prove me wrong. Or keep flaming me, your choice.

ruh roh, ravikins.. more TAX topics, eh?

 

[manifold]

Paulie once again practicing what he preaches.

 

[Ravi]

See, that's the thing though. The government doesn't want people like you getting assistance, because you only need them for a little while until you are doing better, and then you don't depend on them anymore.

They want the people who make their living collecting government hand-outs. The kind of people who vote BASED on those benefits. It's a system of control. When you have people depending on you to survive, you have them wrapped around your finger.

That's BS. Poor people don't vote in any large numbers. More right wing nonsense.

Wait, maybe you're talking about poor, church going people in middle America. In that case, you could be right.

 

[Ravi]

Dave, if you are still reading this, it sounds as if you don't quite remember if you wrote off that charitable donation or not...at least you didn't emphatically say you wouldn't write one off...does that mean you would have if you could?

And if so, doesn't that kind of make it so you did benefit from a government handout?

 

[Shogun]

As a person who was once a broke ass college student I have to say that the idea of students getting food stamps just doesn't sit well with me. It seems that this social net should be provided to those who are trying to survive minimally in lieu of opportunity. College kids hardly fall into that category by definition of their ability to spend money, cash now or loans later, on advanced education. Maybe getting a job instead of having classes for a whole 4 hours a day would provide more food than what has become something of a right of alcoholic passage in an age that SELLS more degrees than our society actually needs.

 

[Glori.B]

Dave, if you are still reading this, it sounds as if you don't quite remember if you wrote off that charitable donation or not...at least you didn't emphatically say you wouldn't write one off...does that mean you would have if you could?

And if so, doesn't that kind of make it so you did benefit from a government handout?

huh? forgive me, i haven't read what lead up to this, but are you saying that taking a charitable deduction is a government handout?

 

[Paulie]

That's BS. Poor people don't vote in any large numbers. More right wing nonsense.

Wait, maybe you're talking about poor, church going people in middle America. In that case, you could be right.

They don't, huh?

Well then why would the GOP have needed to pull those tactics in the inner cities that so many dems claim they pulled to keep those people from being able to vote?

Not that you ever personally claimed that, but it certainly is a typical liberal talking point.

How do you figure that "poor" people don't vote in large numbers? You're telling me that people who live off the government don't vote?

 

[jillian]

They don't, huh?

Well then why would the GOP have needed to pull those tactics in the inner cities that so many dems claim they pulled to keep those people from being able to vote?

Not that you ever personally claimed that, but it certainly is a typical liberal talking point.

How do you figure that "poor" people don't vote in large numbers? You're telling me that people who live off the government don't vote?

Actually, I don't believe anyone ever said those tactics were to keep *poor* people from voting. They were to keep *black* people from voting.

You know that the two aren't interchangeable, right?

 

[Paulie]

Actually, I don't believe anyone ever said those tactics were to keep *poor* people from voting. They were to keep *black* people from voting.

You know that the two aren't interchangeable, right?

What's the difference when they'd both be heavily voting Dem?

 

[Paulie]

Paulie once again practicing what he preaches.

I'll take that lump like a man.

 

[Paulie]

Actually, I don't believe anyone ever said those tactics were to keep *poor* people from voting. They were to keep *black* people from voting.

You know that the two aren't interchangeable, right?

And some of the tactics I've read about supposedly taking place, were undestaffing voting precincts, placing way too few booths at staunch Democrat locations causing lines and wait times that many people weren't prepared to sit through.

It wasn't just about keeping blacks out, it was keeping DEMS out, as I understand it.

 

[Shogun]

i tried to return the pos rep, mani, but apparently, i have to spread it around..

Im just saying.. it doesn't have to hit every thread, yo.

 

[Ravi]

huh? forgive me, i haven't read what lead up to this, but are you saying that taking a charitable deduction is a government handout?

sigh

No, you need to go back and read the thread.

 

[Ravi]

What's the difference when they'd both be heavily voting Dem?

That's kind of racist, no?

 

[Ravi]

Okay, Pauli, I don't want to derail the thread but basically the Republicans are always crying voter fraud when there have been about 7 documented and convicted cases of voter fraud in the last 40 years. So they are always coming up with new ways to make it harder for people to vote...like making them pay for a photo-id...which a lot of Dems see as a poll tax.

 

[Glori.B]

sigh

No, you need to go back and read the thread.

okay, i will later when i have more time...

 

[Shogun]

not to this dem...

proving identity in order to facilitate the integrity of the poll ONLY makes sense. When state IDs become free THEN it becomes a matter of bus fares and cost of transportation to the friggin DMV. It's disingenuous as hell and transparent as fuck. If only the cost of reacting TO voter ID bills were put towards actually facilitating those who cant seem to achieve the epic feat of getting a free state ID....

 

[Paulie]

Rav I really don't have any desire to derail this thread anymore than it already has been. thanks mani.

Where we're potentially going is a hot button issue and it will most likely kill the topic. The main point I originally made was that government wants control, and they get it by keeping people attached to their tit. They only seem willing to give so much, if any at all, to the ones who obviously only need it temporarily, but the ones who need it perpetually have no problem re-upping after every review.

 

[Ravi]

Rav I really don't have any desire to derail this thread anymore than it already has been. thanks mani.

Where we're potentially going is a hot button issue and it will most likely kill the topic. The main point I originally made was that government wants control, and they get it by keeping people attached to their tit. They only seem willing to give so much, if any at all, to the ones who obviously only need it temporarily, but the ones who need it perpetually have no problem re-upping after every review.

I agree the government wants control. And you could be right, this is one way of keeping some control since nothing ever gets done about it by either side.

if you really want to see mani pitch a fit, derail one of his threads. he can dish it out but he can't take it.

But I was more interested in knowing if people would or would not take the food stamps, legally given, despite need.

 

[Anguille]

The main point I originally made was that government wants control, and they get it by keeping people attached to their tit.

That's how I perceive what trickle down economics wants to be.