If you try to impeach Trump, the American people will not stand for it

[Flopper]

Let's set the record straight. The 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget that goes toward abortions are not being paid by the federal government. It is illegal.

Removing federal funding for planned parent parenthood which is 40% of their budget would reduce medicaid payments for contraceptives, testing for sexual transmitted diseases, sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening, and family planing counseling. The funding for abortions which is paid for out of state Medicaid funds in most states or private donations would continue. So removing federal funds from planned parenthood would not stop one single abortion, but would in fact prevent the distribution 3.5 million contraceptives a year which would increase the number of wanted pregnancies which would mean more unwanted births and abortions.

Without the 935,000 cancer screening a year, 4.5 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, and 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal screens done by planned parenthood, disease and healthcare costs among the poor would increase.

Planned Parenthood's Services - FactCheck.org

Here we go with that leftist ideology that it will cost us more later than if we don't give lowlifes the money or things they want now. Sorry, but I'm to the point I don't care anymore. If it isn't that, it's about the children. Sick of all the excuses to be quite honest.

Maybe that's the reason many people don't try harder in life; increase their income; do what they can to be more responsible with their choices in life. What ever they don't get for themselves, we will just give them, so why bother trying?

I've seen enough where I can say let them all die. I just don't care any longer. It's not that I'm a heartless person, but we don't just give to the needy any longer, we give to anybody that doesn't feel like working or taking personal responsibility. Maybe the best thing we can do for our society is thin the herd, not expand it.

View attachment 128881

I agree. I think abortion is a good idea particular for the poor. Contrary to popular beliefs, most poor people don't want big families but by time they figure this out they already have 2 or 3. Raising kids is hard even if you have money, job, and live in a nice neighborhood but if have none of these, it's really really hard which is why so many low income people just give up and those with any sense at all, don't hesitate to abort unwanted kids because being broke with a bunch kids is hell.

I disagree. I know of people that had more kids because it meant more government handouts.

The more kids you have, the larger the SNAP's card, the more excuse you have not to work for a period of time, the large the welfare check, the larger the HUD house in the suburbs.

When I see these food stamp people, most of them have 3 kids or more. The average working family has about 2 kids.

There are lots of reason that people have more kids. People with low incomes may well say I'm going to get x more dollars in additional benefits just like someone in a higher income bracket will say, I'll get another tax exemption. However, is the extra tax exemption or another dependent on your DHS application going to be the reason to have another kid. The answer is absolutely, NO.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. States providing relatively higher benefits do not show any higher birth rates among recipients than those with lower benefits.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of “incentive”: A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC benefits if she has another child and an average of an additional $70 in food stamps. Hud benefits do not necessary change. Studies show the poor are not willing to take on the care of an additional family member for $160 a month. Actually it is really a lot less because there are time limit on benefits, a maximum of 5 years. In some states, it is as short as 3 years.

Out of that $160/mo, the parents have to provide food, clothing, entertainment, possible childcare, toilet articles like diapers. The average family in America spends $500 to $1000 a year on just diapers. And what happens when the kid is 15 years old and and is eating $250 a month in food, allowances for food do not increase with age. The bottom line is anyone that would have a kid and raise it just to get $160/mo is crazy. Just the cost of food to raise a child to age 18 is over twice that amount.

Oh, so you like studies? Let me present a few of them I stored in my folder:

Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income

Census: Americans in ‘Poverty’ Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves

Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn - Breitbart

Census Bureau: Means-Tested Gov't Benefit Recipients Outnumber Full-Time Year-Round Workers

The Work versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013

You seem to be scraping the bottom of barrel, Breitbart News, CNS News, yet nothing addresses your subject, people that have more kids because it means more government handouts.

 

[Billo_Really]

It's all a charade, that no one should take too seriously. The government will run just fine for quite awhile without politicians. Every department, bureau, or agency is headed by professionals, who unlike the politicians understand government and their job and in reality make the operational decisions. The ass kissers at the top just nod their heads and try look like they really understand but of course they don't and they just follow the recommendations of the people that have been doing this stuff for years.

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, many of those people have been gutted from government. Remember, there are still approximately over 50 nominations to Congress yet to be filed for this government.

 

[Billo_Really]

You seem to be scraping the bottom of barrel, Breitbart News, CNS News, yet nothing addresses your subject, people that have more kids because it means more government handouts.

Some people just like to fuck!

 

[RealDave]

Let's set the record straight. The 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget that goes toward abortions are not being paid by the federal government. It is illegal.

Removing federal funding for planned parent parenthood which is 40% of their budget would reduce medicaid payments for contraceptives, testing for sexual transmitted diseases, sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening, and family planing counseling. The funding for abortions which is paid for out of state Medicaid funds in most states or private donations would continue. So removing federal funds from planned parenthood would not stop one single abortion, but would in fact prevent the distribution 3.5 million contraceptives a year which would increase the number of wanted pregnancies which would mean more unwanted births and abortions.

Without the 935,000 cancer screening a year, 4.5 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases, and 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal screens done by planned parenthood, disease and healthcare costs among the poor would increase.

Planned Parenthood's Services - FactCheck.org

Here we go with that leftist ideology that it will cost us more later than if we don't give lowlifes the money or things they want now. Sorry, but I'm to the point I don't care anymore. If it isn't that, it's about the children. Sick of all the excuses to be quite honest.

Maybe that's the reason many people don't try harder in life; increase their income; do what they can to be more responsible with their choices in life. What ever they don't get for themselves, we will just give them, so why bother trying?

I've seen enough where I can say let them all die. I just don't care any longer. It's not that I'm a heartless person, but we don't just give to the needy any longer, we give to anybody that doesn't feel like working or taking personal responsibility. Maybe the best thing we can do for our society is thin the herd, not expand it.

View attachment 128881

I agree. I think abortion is a good idea particular for the poor. Contrary to popular beliefs, most poor people don't want big families but by time they figure this out they already have 2 or 3. Raising kids is hard even if you have money, job, and live in a nice neighborhood but if have none of these, it's really really hard which is why so many low income people just give up and those with any sense at all, don't hesitate to abort unwanted kids because being broke with a bunch kids is hell.

I disagree. I know of people that had more kids because it meant more government handouts.

The more kids you have, the larger the SNAP's card, the more excuse you have not to work for a period of time, the large the welfare check, the larger the HUD house in the suburbs.

When I see these food stamp people, most of them have 3 kids or more. The average working family has about 2 kids.

There are lots of reason that people have more kids. People with low incomes may well say I'm going to get x more dollars in additional benefits just like someone in a higher income bracket will say, I'll get another tax exemption. However, is the extra tax exemption or another dependent on your DHS application going to be the reason to have another kid. The answer is absolutely, NO.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. States providing relatively higher benefits do not show any higher birth rates among recipients than those with lower benefits.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of “incentive”: A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC benefits if she has another child and an average of an additional $70 in food stamps. Hud benefits do not necessary change. Studies show the poor are not willing to take on the care of an additional family member for $160 a month. Actually it is really a lot less because there are time limit on benefits, a maximum of 5 years. In some states, it is as short as 3 years.

Out of that $160/mo, the parents have to provide food, clothing, entertainment, possible childcare, toilet articles like diapers. The average family in America spends $500 to $1000 a year on just diapers. And what happens when the kid is 15 years old and and is eating $250 a month in food, allowances for food do not increase with age. The bottom line is anyone that would have a kid and raise it just to get $160/mo is crazy. Just the cost of food to raise a child to age 18 is over twice that amount.

Oh, so you like studies? Let me present a few of them I stored in my folder:

Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income

Census: Americans in ‘Poverty’ Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves

Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn - Breitbart

Census Bureau: Means-Tested Gov't Benefit Recipients Outnumber Full-Time Year-Round Workers

The Work versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013

Ever been top an auction? You can get a used air conditional for $40, VCRs for $10, Used big screens for $30, etc. There is a program for cell phones.

Breitbart? Anyone quoting Breitbart is a fucking idiot.

I love it when you Trumpettes have a fit about the poor yet love handing money to the wealthy in tax cuts & tax breaks.

You eople are dumber than shit.

 

[RealDave]

The desperation of the left is as pitiful as it is disgraceful. They simply cannot accept that the American people have spoke and President Trump is our president. They have tried to come up with every reason and engage in every tactic imaginable to get President Trump removed. The sad part is that he's only 5 months into his term. They are so fascist and so intolerant that they refuse to even give him a chance before resorting to desperate and idiotic tactics. This latest is a gem...

The Left's Insane Plan to Remove President Trump

When DumBama won his first term, nobody on the right was happy about it. But after a few weeks, we just sat back and said "Okay, let America see what it's like to be a leftist country........they'll learn." Well we did, and had historical comebacks in following elections.

We were confident that the left would hang themselves with their antics. The left are not like that with Trump. They are very scared because if Trump gets most of his agenda accomplished, Americans will see how much better things are under Republicans than Democrats.

It's the same thing when somebody on the Republican side wants to give a speech. They protest, riot, do whatever they can to stop the speaker. Why? Because they are scared. Conservatism makes sense and those on the left who have the guts to listen may be converted, so that's what they are really scared about.

When a leftist gives a speech, we don't protest. We want people to hear what they have to say. It only benefits us when they speak.

WE saw how fucking great it was under Republicans when we watched George W Bush & the Republican Congress take is from a balanced budget to the worst recession in 80 freaking years, a housing collapse, a near financial meltdown & two quagmire wars.

After Obama was elected, wed watch him slow & end the Bush recession & proceed to set the record for the most consecutive months of job growth.

Yeah, all that job growth, and yet, we still have almost as many people on food stamps as when DumBama allowed it to reach it's peak. Still bad numbers for the labor participation rate. And then there is......

View attachment 128829

Now look at Bush's numbers compared to DumBama's. Forget about the numbers, just look at the graph and it's declines and inclines.

You can give him all the credit now.

How long did it take for you you find a stat that hid the Bush economic disaster. Median income.

You ignored unemployment, job loses, etc & grasp median incomes. I can't believe you are defending Bush's economic record.

Food Stamps participation: 2001 17.3 million
2009 33.4 million
2016 44.2 million

You must have forgotten to have your tissy fit about how Bush added more to food stamps than Obama. & Bush stasrted with a balanced budget!

Yes, Bush started with 17 million and ended in 27 million because of the housing collapse and economy. He was only President 20 days in 2009. Nice stretch though.

The Economy Bush destroyed & here you are using it as an excuse.

My point is this: Quit bitching about Obama & food Stamps when your buddy Bush not only added more but created the shit economy that added so many under Obama.

When the fuck are you going to blame those really at fault.

 

[Faun]

When DumBama won his first term, nobody on the right was happy about it. But after a few weeks, we just sat back and said "Okay, let America see what it's like to be a leftist country........they'll learn." Well we did, and had historical comebacks in following elections.

We were confident that the left would hang themselves with their antics. The left are not like that with Trump. They are very scared because if Trump gets most of his agenda accomplished, Americans will see how much better things are under Republicans than Democrats.

It's the same thing when somebody on the Republican side wants to give a speech. They protest, riot, do whatever they can to stop the speaker. Why? Because they are scared. Conservatism makes sense and those on the left who have the guts to listen may be converted, so that's what they are really scared about.

When a leftist gives a speech, we don't protest. We want people to hear what they have to say. It only benefits us when they speak.

WE saw how fucking great it was under Republicans when we watched George W Bush & the Republican Congress take is from a balanced budget to the worst recession in 80 freaking years, a housing collapse, a near financial meltdown & two quagmire wars.

After Obama was elected, wed watch him slow & end the Bush recession & proceed to set the record for the most consecutive months of job growth.

Yeah, all that job growth, and yet, we still have almost as many people on food stamps as when DumBama allowed it to reach it's peak. Still bad numbers for the labor participation rate. And then there is......

View attachment 128829

Now look at Bush's numbers compared to DumBama's. Forget about the numbers, just look at the graph and it's declines and inclines.

You can give him all the credit now.

How long did it take for you you find a stat that hid the Bush economic disaster. Median income.

You ignored unemployment, job loses, etc & grasp median incomes. I can't believe you are defending Bush's economic record.

Food Stamps participation: 2001 17.3 million
2009 33.4 million
2016 44.2 million

You must have forgotten to have your tissy fit about how Bush added more to food stamps than Obama. & Bush stasrted with a balanced budget!

Yes, Bush started with 17 million and ended in 27 million because of the housing collapse and economy. He was only President 20 days in 2009. Nice stretch though.

The Economy Bush destroyed & here you are using it as an excuse.

My point is this: Quit bitching about Obama & food Stamps when your buddy Bush not only added more but created the shit economy that added so many under Obama.

When the fuck are you going to blame those really at fault.

Wreck the economy and then blame Democrats, the conservative way.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When DumBama won his first term, nobody on the right was happy about it. But after a few weeks, we just sat back and said "Okay, let America see what it's like to be a leftist country........they'll learn." Well we did, and had historical comebacks in following elections.

We were confident that the left would hang themselves with their antics. The left are not like that with Trump. They are very scared because if Trump gets most of his agenda accomplished, Americans will see how much better things are under Republicans than Democrats.

It's the same thing when somebody on the Republican side wants to give a speech. They protest, riot, do whatever they can to stop the speaker. Why? Because they are scared. Conservatism makes sense and those on the left who have the guts to listen may be converted, so that's what they are really scared about.

When a leftist gives a speech, we don't protest. We want people to hear what they have to say. It only benefits us when they speak.

WE saw how fucking great it was under Republicans when we watched George W Bush & the Republican Congress take is from a balanced budget to the worst recession in 80 freaking years, a housing collapse, a near financial meltdown & two quagmire wars.

After Obama was elected, wed watch him slow & end the Bush recession & proceed to set the record for the most consecutive months of job growth.

Yeah, all that job growth, and yet, we still have almost as many people on food stamps as when DumBama allowed it to reach it's peak. Still bad numbers for the labor participation rate. And then there is......

View attachment 128829

Now look at Bush's numbers compared to DumBama's. Forget about the numbers, just look at the graph and it's declines and inclines.

You can give him all the credit now.

How long did it take for you you find a stat that hid the Bush economic disaster. Median income.

You ignored unemployment, job loses, etc & grasp median incomes. I can't believe you are defending Bush's economic record.

Food Stamps participation: 2001 17.3 million
2009 33.4 million
2016 44.2 million

You must have forgotten to have your tissy fit about how Bush added more to food stamps than Obama. & Bush stasrted with a balanced budget!

Yes, Bush started with 17 million and ended in 27 million because of the housing collapse and economy. He was only President 20 days in 2009. Nice stretch though.

The Economy Bush destroyed & here you are using it as an excuse.

My point is this: Quit bitching about Obama & food Stamps when your buddy Bush not only added more but created the shit economy that added so many under Obama.

When the fuck are you going to blame those really at fault.

Don't you know how to read charts? Bush did not come near DumBama when it comes to the amount of new people going on food stamps. Plus remember who took over the leadership in Congress in 2006.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here we go with that leftist ideology that it will cost us more later than if we don't give lowlifes the money or things they want now. Sorry, but I'm to the point I don't care anymore. If it isn't that, it's about the children. Sick of all the excuses to be quite honest.

Maybe that's the reason many people don't try harder in life; increase their income; do what they can to be more responsible with their choices in life. What ever they don't get for themselves, we will just give them, so why bother trying?

I've seen enough where I can say let them all die. I just don't care any longer. It's not that I'm a heartless person, but we don't just give to the needy any longer, we give to anybody that doesn't feel like working or taking personal responsibility. Maybe the best thing we can do for our society is thin the herd, not expand it.

View attachment 128881

I agree. I think abortion is a good idea particular for the poor. Contrary to popular beliefs, most poor people don't want big families but by time they figure this out they already have 2 or 3. Raising kids is hard even if you have money, job, and live in a nice neighborhood but if have none of these, it's really really hard which is why so many low income people just give up and those with any sense at all, don't hesitate to abort unwanted kids because being broke with a bunch kids is hell.

I disagree. I know of people that had more kids because it meant more government handouts.

The more kids you have, the larger the SNAP's card, the more excuse you have not to work for a period of time, the large the welfare check, the larger the HUD house in the suburbs.

When I see these food stamp people, most of them have 3 kids or more. The average working family has about 2 kids.

There are lots of reason that people have more kids. People with low incomes may well say I'm going to get x more dollars in additional benefits just like someone in a higher income bracket will say, I'll get another tax exemption. However, is the extra tax exemption or another dependent on your DHS application going to be the reason to have another kid. The answer is absolutely, NO.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. States providing relatively higher benefits do not show any higher birth rates among recipients than those with lower benefits.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of “incentive”: A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC benefits if she has another child and an average of an additional $70 in food stamps. Hud benefits do not necessary change. Studies show the poor are not willing to take on the care of an additional family member for $160 a month. Actually it is really a lot less because there are time limit on benefits, a maximum of 5 years. In some states, it is as short as 3 years.

Out of that $160/mo, the parents have to provide food, clothing, entertainment, possible childcare, toilet articles like diapers. The average family in America spends $500 to $1000 a year on just diapers. And what happens when the kid is 15 years old and and is eating $250 a month in food, allowances for food do not increase with age. The bottom line is anyone that would have a kid and raise it just to get $160/mo is crazy. Just the cost of food to raise a child to age 18 is over twice that amount.

Oh, so you like studies? Let me present a few of them I stored in my folder:

Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income

Census: Americans in ‘Poverty’ Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves

Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn - Breitbart

Census Bureau: Means-Tested Gov't Benefit Recipients Outnumber Full-Time Year-Round Workers

The Work versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013

Ever been top an auction? You can get a used air conditional for $40, VCRs for $10, Used big screens for $30, etc. There is a program for cell phones.

Breitbart? Anyone quoting Breitbart is a fucking idiot.

I love it when you Trumpettes have a fit about the poor yet love handing money to the wealthy in tax cuts & tax breaks.

You eople are dumber than shit.

The only people dumber than shit are those who think letting people keep more of THEIR OWN money that THEY WORKED FOR is giving them something.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here we go with that leftist ideology that it will cost us more later than if we don't give lowlifes the money or things they want now. Sorry, but I'm to the point I don't care anymore. If it isn't that, it's about the children. Sick of all the excuses to be quite honest.

Maybe that's the reason many people don't try harder in life; increase their income; do what they can to be more responsible with their choices in life. What ever they don't get for themselves, we will just give them, so why bother trying?

I've seen enough where I can say let them all die. I just don't care any longer. It's not that I'm a heartless person, but we don't just give to the needy any longer, we give to anybody that doesn't feel like working or taking personal responsibility. Maybe the best thing we can do for our society is thin the herd, not expand it.

View attachment 128881

I agree. I think abortion is a good idea particular for the poor. Contrary to popular beliefs, most poor people don't want big families but by time they figure this out they already have 2 or 3. Raising kids is hard even if you have money, job, and live in a nice neighborhood but if have none of these, it's really really hard which is why so many low income people just give up and those with any sense at all, don't hesitate to abort unwanted kids because being broke with a bunch kids is hell.

I disagree. I know of people that had more kids because it meant more government handouts.

The more kids you have, the larger the SNAP's card, the more excuse you have not to work for a period of time, the large the welfare check, the larger the HUD house in the suburbs.

When I see these food stamp people, most of them have 3 kids or more. The average working family has about 2 kids.

There are lots of reason that people have more kids. People with low incomes may well say I'm going to get x more dollars in additional benefits just like someone in a higher income bracket will say, I'll get another tax exemption. However, is the extra tax exemption or another dependent on your DHS application going to be the reason to have another kid. The answer is absolutely, NO.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. States providing relatively higher benefits do not show any higher birth rates among recipients than those with lower benefits.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of “incentive”: A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC benefits if she has another child and an average of an additional $70 in food stamps. Hud benefits do not necessary change. Studies show the poor are not willing to take on the care of an additional family member for $160 a month. Actually it is really a lot less because there are time limit on benefits, a maximum of 5 years. In some states, it is as short as 3 years.

Out of that $160/mo, the parents have to provide food, clothing, entertainment, possible childcare, toilet articles like diapers. The average family in America spends $500 to $1000 a year on just diapers. And what happens when the kid is 15 years old and and is eating $250 a month in food, allowances for food do not increase with age. The bottom line is anyone that would have a kid and raise it just to get $160/mo is crazy. Just the cost of food to raise a child to age 18 is over twice that amount.

Oh, so you like studies? Let me present a few of them I stored in my folder:

Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income

Census: Americans in ‘Poverty’ Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves

Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn - Breitbart

Census Bureau: Means-Tested Gov't Benefit Recipients Outnumber Full-Time Year-Round Workers

The Work versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013

You seem to be scraping the bottom of barrel, Breitbart News, CNS News, yet nothing addresses your subject, people that have more kids because it means more government handouts.

That's typical. Attack the messenger and not the message. If your read any of those stories, you would see they come with hyperlinks or use the US census to get their information.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

WTF did you just say? If I get a bunch of people that object to Nestles, the government can declare that Gerber Baby Food is no longer an approved food stamp item.

I can't believe you are actually so stupid to make that post.

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

Cutting out PP is not the same as not funding public radio. It is choosing an organization & attacking it when that organization is perfectly legal.

You little Naxi fuck.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Just how do you think the federal government is funding planned parenthood?

When PP provides a pelvic exam or breast cancer evaluation, they get reimbursed for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Nestle (who owns Gerber) get government money when food stamps are used to buy their product.

So it is the same.

I suspect you are sofa king stupid that yoiu think the fecderal government just sends PP money instead of reimburse for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Okay, so what happens to the money they get from donations and other support? It goes to abortions instead of those pelvic exams and breast cancer evaluations.

It's kind of like when we started the lottery here. It was said that some of the profit will go to help the schools in the state. Fine. But what happened is that when the lottery money went to the schools, the state cut state funding to the schools, and they were no further ahead.

Planned Parenthood spends 76% of their budget on STI/STD and contraceptives. Although there is Medicaid coverage, that coverage varies by state. Also, it is not complete coverage either for testing or providing contraception. There are still millions of people with no insurance coverage of any kind. Planned Parenthood picks up what insurance does not cover.

So why would anybody pay lowlifes contraception? If you can't afford to F, then don't F around. It is an option you know.

 

[RealDave]

WTF did you just say? If I get a bunch of people that object to Nestles, the government can declare that Gerber Baby Food is no longer an approved food stamp item.

I can't believe you are actually so stupid to make that post.

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

Cutting out PP is not the same as not funding public radio. It is choosing an organization & attacking it when that organization is perfectly legal.

You little Naxi fuck.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Just how do you think the federal government is funding planned parenthood?

When PP provides a pelvic exam or breast cancer evaluation, they get reimbursed for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Nestle (who owns Gerber) get government money when food stamps are used to buy their product.

So it is the same.

I suspect you are sofa king stupid that yoiu think the fecderal government just sends PP money instead of reimburse for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Okay, so what happens to the money they get from donations and other support? It goes to abortions instead of those pelvic exams and breast cancer evaluations.

It's kind of like when we started the lottery here. It was said that some of the profit will go to help the schools in the state. Fine. But what happened is that when the lottery money went to the schools, the state cut state funding to the schools, and they were no further ahead.

Planned Parenthood spends 76% of their budget on STI/STD and contraceptives. Although there is Medicaid coverage, that coverage varies by state. Also, it is not complete coverage either for testing or providing contraception. There are still millions of people with no insurance coverage of any kind. Planned Parenthood picks up what insurance does not cover.

So why would anybody pay lowlifes contraception? If you can't afford to F, then don't F around. It is an option you know.

You aren't very bright. I would thnk it would be cheaper to make sure poor people had access to birth control than pay for benefits they would get to raise those children. But I Forgot,. In Trumpland, Poor people aren't supposed to eat, have a roof over their head, feed their children, or God forbid, have sex.

Not only that, you are calling poor people lowlifes. Yet another judgemental Triumpette asshole blaming poor people for being poor.

 

[RealDave]

I agree. I think abortion is a good idea particular for the poor. Contrary to popular beliefs, most poor people don't want big families but by time they figure this out they already have 2 or 3. Raising kids is hard even if you have money, job, and live in a nice neighborhood but if have none of these, it's really really hard which is why so many low income people just give up and those with any sense at all, don't hesitate to abort unwanted kids because being broke with a bunch kids is hell.

I disagree. I know of people that had more kids because it meant more government handouts.

The more kids you have, the larger the SNAP's card, the more excuse you have not to work for a period of time, the large the welfare check, the larger the HUD house in the suburbs.

When I see these food stamp people, most of them have 3 kids or more. The average working family has about 2 kids.

There are lots of reason that people have more kids. People with low incomes may well say I'm going to get x more dollars in additional benefits just like someone in a higher income bracket will say, I'll get another tax exemption. However, is the extra tax exemption or another dependent on your DHS application going to be the reason to have another kid. The answer is absolutely, NO.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. States providing relatively higher benefits do not show any higher birth rates among recipients than those with lower benefits.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of “incentive”: A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC benefits if she has another child and an average of an additional $70 in food stamps. Hud benefits do not necessary change. Studies show the poor are not willing to take on the care of an additional family member for $160 a month. Actually it is really a lot less because there are time limit on benefits, a maximum of 5 years. In some states, it is as short as 3 years.

Out of that $160/mo, the parents have to provide food, clothing, entertainment, possible childcare, toilet articles like diapers. The average family in America spends $500 to $1000 a year on just diapers. And what happens when the kid is 15 years old and and is eating $250 a month in food, allowances for food do not increase with age. The bottom line is anyone that would have a kid and raise it just to get $160/mo is crazy. Just the cost of food to raise a child to age 18 is over twice that amount.

Oh, so you like studies? Let me present a few of them I stored in my folder:

Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income

Census: Americans in ‘Poverty’ Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves

Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn - Breitbart

Census Bureau: Means-Tested Gov't Benefit Recipients Outnumber Full-Time Year-Round Workers

The Work versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013

Ever been top an auction? You can get a used air conditional for $40, VCRs for $10, Used big screens for $30, etc. There is a program for cell phones.

Breitbart? Anyone quoting Breitbart is a fucking idiot.

I love it when you Trumpettes have a fit about the poor yet love handing money to the wealthy in tax cuts & tax breaks.

You eople are dumber than shit.

The only people dumber than shit are those who think letting people keep more of THEIR OWN money that THEY WORKED FOR is giving them something.

So, if you were going to pay $10K in income taxes & Trump passes a tax break that lowers your rate to $5k, you don't have more money in your wallet.

You are dumber than shit .

 

[RealDave]

WE saw how fucking great it was under Republicans when we watched George W Bush & the Republican Congress take is from a balanced budget to the worst recession in 80 freaking years, a housing collapse, a near financial meltdown & two quagmire wars.

After Obama was elected, wed watch him slow & end the Bush recession & proceed to set the record for the most consecutive months of job growth.

Yeah, all that job growth, and yet, we still have almost as many people on food stamps as when DumBama allowed it to reach it's peak. Still bad numbers for the labor participation rate. And then there is......

View attachment 128829

Now look at Bush's numbers compared to DumBama's. Forget about the numbers, just look at the graph and it's declines and inclines.

You can give him all the credit now.

How long did it take for you you find a stat that hid the Bush economic disaster. Median income.

You ignored unemployment, job loses, etc & grasp median incomes. I can't believe you are defending Bush's economic record.

Food Stamps participation: 2001 17.3 million
2009 33.4 million
2016 44.2 million

You must have forgotten to have your tissy fit about how Bush added more to food stamps than Obama. & Bush stasrted with a balanced budget!

Yes, Bush started with 17 million and ended in 27 million because of the housing collapse and economy. He was only President 20 days in 2009. Nice stretch though.

The Economy Bush destroyed & here you are using it as an excuse.

My point is this: Quit bitching about Obama & food Stamps when your buddy Bush not only added more but created the shit economy that added so many under Obama.

When the fuck are you going to blame those really at fault.

Don't you know how to read charts? Bush did not come near DumBama when it comes to the amount of new people going on food stamps. Plus remember who took over the leadership in Congress in 2006.

And who the fuck took over the House in 2011 & Senate in 2015

 

[RASTAMEN]

How is it you have the internet and talk about something you have absolutely no clue about?

Your side giving a bad example.

Bill dug his own grave. All he had to give Paula Jones was a simple apology and an admission of guilt, and Monica Lewinsky wouldn't have even entered the picture. I understand this is in contrast to what the Democrat web sites have told you, but don't listen to them. Democrats are born liars. Bill didn't get in trouble over a blow job.

You wasted the country's time over a sex act. Then you look the other way when Trump talks about "grabbing pussy's". Now when faced with a growing mountain of evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians, you stick your head up your ass.

Yes, colluding with Russians and giving away secrets WOULD BE worse if any of those things happened. But again, Democrats just feed you puppets a line of bullshit and you believe them. Show me one ounce of evidence Trump did those things.......just a smidgen. Because I can sure give you evidence that Clinton allowed an American company to sell guiding devices to China so they gained the ability to launch nuclear rockets at us.

This isn't from that pizza shop in Queens, is it?

Which is worse???

Oh, a sex act in the Oral Office is much worse than compromising our national security.

What mountain of evidence? Hannity just played on tv all the Democrats admitting there is no evidence, only accusations and insubstantial allegations.

 

[Flopper]

WTF did you just say? If I get a bunch of people that object to Nestles, the government can declare that Gerber Baby Food is no longer an approved food stamp item.

I can't believe you are actually so stupid to make that post.

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

Cutting out PP is not the same as not funding public radio. It is choosing an organization & attacking it when that organization is perfectly legal.

You little Naxi fuck.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Just how do you think the federal government is funding planned parenthood?

When PP provides a pelvic exam or breast cancer evaluation, they get reimbursed for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Nestle (who owns Gerber) get government money when food stamps are used to buy their product.

So it is the same.

I suspect you are sofa king stupid that yoiu think the fecderal government just sends PP money instead of reimburse for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Okay, so what happens to the money they get from donations and other support? It goes to abortions instead of those pelvic exams and breast cancer evaluations.

It's kind of like when we started the lottery here. It was said that some of the profit will go to help the schools in the state. Fine. But what happened is that when the lottery money went to the schools, the state cut state funding to the schools, and they were no further ahead.

Planned Parenthood spends 76% of their budget on STI/STD and contraceptives. Although there is Medicaid coverage, that coverage varies by state. Also, it is not complete coverage either for testing or providing contraception. There are still millions of people with no insurance coverage of any kind. Planned Parenthood picks up what insurance does not cover.

So why would anybody pay lowlifes contraception? If you can't afford to F, then don't F around. It is an option you know.

Very simple. Birth control in the hands of the poor means less abortions and less unwanted children born to parents that neither want them or can afford to raise them. How can conservatives anxious to reduce government subsidies to the poor and to reduce abortions see more birth control as anything but good?

 

[Billo_Really]

That is definitely a mountain of evidence.

 

[Hossfly]

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Just how do you think the federal government is funding planned parenthood?

When PP provides a pelvic exam or breast cancer evaluation, they get reimbursed for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Nestle (who owns Gerber) get government money when food stamps are used to buy their product.

So it is the same.

I suspect you are sofa king stupid that yoiu think the fecderal government just sends PP money instead of reimburse for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Okay, so what happens to the money they get from donations and other support? It goes to abortions instead of those pelvic exams and breast cancer evaluations.

It's kind of like when we started the lottery here. It was said that some of the profit will go to help the schools in the state. Fine. But what happened is that when the lottery money went to the schools, the state cut state funding to the schools, and they were no further ahead.

Planned Parenthood spends 76% of their budget on STI/STD and contraceptives. Although there is Medicaid coverage, that coverage varies by state. Also, it is not complete coverage either for testing or providing contraception. There are still millions of people with no insurance coverage of any kind. Planned Parenthood picks up what insurance does not cover.

So why would anybody pay lowlifes contraception? If you can't afford to F, then don't F around. It is an option you know.

Very simple. Birth control in the hands of the poor means less abortions and less unwanted children born to parents that neither want them or can afford to raise them. How can conservatives anxious to reduce government subsidies to the poor and to reduce abortions see more birth control as anything but good?

Simple. Castrate and spay the rutting bastards and bitches so they won't spawn more rutting brats.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, people would have the right to object to Nestles if Nestles is being supported by public tax dollars.

PP is not the same as funding radio or television stations? What's the difference? Nobody ever said we should put PP out of business, we just said we don't want our tax dollars to go to the largest abortion center in the country. What if the Republicans decided to give funds to Smith & Wesson? I bet you would become a little Nazi yourself, wouldn't you?

Speaking of Nazism, you want to give tax dollars to an organization people object to, and force them against their will and vote to support them. I'm for giving voters the right to choose what kind of government (and handouts) they wish to give.

Just how do you think the federal government is funding planned parenthood?

When PP provides a pelvic exam or breast cancer evaluation, they get reimbursed for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Nestle (who owns Gerber) get government money when food stamps are used to buy their product.

So it is the same.

I suspect you are sofa king stupid that yoiu think the fecderal government just sends PP money instead of reimburse for services rendered through Medicaid or Title X.

Okay, so what happens to the money they get from donations and other support? It goes to abortions instead of those pelvic exams and breast cancer evaluations.

It's kind of like when we started the lottery here. It was said that some of the profit will go to help the schools in the state. Fine. But what happened is that when the lottery money went to the schools, the state cut state funding to the schools, and they were no further ahead.

Planned Parenthood spends 76% of their budget on STI/STD and contraceptives. Although there is Medicaid coverage, that coverage varies by state. Also, it is not complete coverage either for testing or providing contraception. There are still millions of people with no insurance coverage of any kind. Planned Parenthood picks up what insurance does not cover.

So why would anybody pay lowlifes contraception? If you can't afford to F, then don't F around. It is an option you know.

Very simple. Birth control in the hands of the poor means less abortions and less unwanted children born to parents that neither want them or can afford to raise them. How can conservatives anxious to reduce government subsidies to the poor and to reduce abortions see more birth control as anything but good?

As I stated so many times, create regulation for those who apply for government assistance. If you want our help, you have to get fixed first. No more going on welfare and keep having kids that taxpayers have to support.

Sandra Fluke was the leader of free birth control. Then it was pointed out to her that BC pills are about nine dollars a month. If you have children you can't support, they should be taken away from the mother and put up for adoption. Nobody has to have sex. That is optional.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, all that job growth, and yet, we still have almost as many people on food stamps as when DumBama allowed it to reach it's peak. Still bad numbers for the labor participation rate. And then there is......

View attachment 128829

Now look at Bush's numbers compared to DumBama's. Forget about the numbers, just look at the graph and it's declines and inclines.

You can give him all the credit now.

How long did it take for you you find a stat that hid the Bush economic disaster. Median income.

You ignored unemployment, job loses, etc & grasp median incomes. I can't believe you are defending Bush's economic record.

Food Stamps participation: 2001 17.3 million
2009 33.4 million
2016 44.2 million

You must have forgotten to have your tissy fit about how Bush added more to food stamps than Obama. & Bush stasrted with a balanced budget!

Yes, Bush started with 17 million and ended in 27 million because of the housing collapse and economy. He was only President 20 days in 2009. Nice stretch though.

The Economy Bush destroyed & here you are using it as an excuse.

My point is this: Quit bitching about Obama & food Stamps when your buddy Bush not only added more but created the shit economy that added so many under Obama.

When the fuck are you going to blame those really at fault.

Don't you know how to read charts? Bush did not come near DumBama when it comes to the amount of new people going on food stamps. Plus remember who took over the leadership in Congress in 2006.

And who the fuck took over the House in 2011 & Senate in 2015

The Republicans, and they did so under a Democrat President. The Republicans reduced funding for the food stamp program. Trump wants to reduce it even more.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I disagree. I know of people that had more kids because it meant more government handouts.

The more kids you have, the larger the SNAP's card, the more excuse you have not to work for a period of time, the large the welfare check, the larger the HUD house in the suburbs.

When I see these food stamp people, most of them have 3 kids or more. The average working family has about 2 kids.

There are lots of reason that people have more kids. People with low incomes may well say I'm going to get x more dollars in additional benefits just like someone in a higher income bracket will say, I'll get another tax exemption. However, is the extra tax exemption or another dependent on your DHS application going to be the reason to have another kid. The answer is absolutely, NO.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children. States providing relatively higher benefits do not show any higher birth rates among recipients than those with lower benefits.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of “incentive”: A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC benefits if she has another child and an average of an additional $70 in food stamps. Hud benefits do not necessary change. Studies show the poor are not willing to take on the care of an additional family member for $160 a month. Actually it is really a lot less because there are time limit on benefits, a maximum of 5 years. In some states, it is as short as 3 years.

Out of that $160/mo, the parents have to provide food, clothing, entertainment, possible childcare, toilet articles like diapers. The average family in America spends $500 to $1000 a year on just diapers. And what happens when the kid is 15 years old and and is eating $250 a month in food, allowances for food do not increase with age. The bottom line is anyone that would have a kid and raise it just to get $160/mo is crazy. Just the cost of food to raise a child to age 18 is over twice that amount.

Oh, so you like studies? Let me present a few of them I stored in my folder:

Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income

Census: Americans in ‘Poverty’ Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves

Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn - Breitbart

Census Bureau: Means-Tested Gov't Benefit Recipients Outnumber Full-Time Year-Round Workers

The Work versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013

Ever been top an auction? You can get a used air conditional for $40, VCRs for $10, Used big screens for $30, etc. There is a program for cell phones.

Breitbart? Anyone quoting Breitbart is a fucking idiot.

I love it when you Trumpettes have a fit about the poor yet love handing money to the wealthy in tax cuts & tax breaks.

You eople are dumber than shit.

The only people dumber than shit are those who think letting people keep more of THEIR OWN money that THEY WORKED FOR is giving them something.

So, if you were going to pay $10K in income taxes & Trump passes a tax break that lowers your rate to $5k, you don't have more money in your wallet.

You are dumber than shit .

No, you are dumber than shit. Of course it would give people more money--more of their own money. But that's not giving them money, that's allowing them to keep more of their own money, something you have no ability to understand.

You leftists believe that all money belongs to government, and what they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you.