Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Were they threatened with force or jail time if they didn't take those benefits?
A few lefty posters here HAVE suggested removing their kids... I suppose you can do that sort of thing if you feel you OWN somebody...
Well we have our own who have said if they refuse foodstamps, their children should be taken away and their asses beaten.
Did the USDA do that?
No -- but if the hand that feeds you is widely supported by folks who would use that same hand to smack you up the side of yo head --- You gotta wonder about the REAL compassion and atruism going on here..
Were they threatened with force or jail time if they didn't take those benefits?
A few lefty posters here HAVE suggested removing their kids... I suppose you can do that sort of thing if you feel you OWN somebody...
Did the USDA do that? Here's my take on it; if they just made them aware that they can qualify for food stamps, I have no problem with that. If they threatened them with civil or criminal action if they didn't take food stamps, then I would DEFINITELY have a problem with that.
Don't we the people feed school age children twice a day?
Sometimes 3 a day...
Did the USDA do that?
No -- but if the hand that feeds you is widely supported by folks who would use that same hand to smack you up the side of yo head --- You gotta wonder about the REAL compassion and atruism going on here..
Do you think that the USDA should be shut down?
And of course it's inconsequential if the opportunities to escape poverty are not there? If you're poor in a rural area, you're screwed. That's the way life is in reality. Not some bumper sticker you picked up at a CPAC convention or something Limbaugh dropped in your ear.
If you're laid off in a Rust Belt town, the rest of the jobs left for China after the venture capitalists got theirs. That means not only the car plant (which Romney thinks should have folded like a Chinese road map), but the hardware store, the barber shop, the diner, the hobby shop and everything else suffers. No jobs gets amplified exponentially.
It's easy to sneer at the poor, particularly if you don't know them. With morals like these, why should I even consider Conservatism as a political philosophy?
Because you and your ilk want the easy way out, you want the government to take care of them. You want the government to ensure people in "poverty" in the US can buy cigarettes and crack cocaine. You want them to have government issued cell phones so they can keep in touch with their suppliers. I've seen a lot more malnourished, obese and undisciplined children of parents on food stamps than those I know who want to be self sustaining, without government interference.
The Food Stamp program was supposed to be temporary help, not a life style. It makes you feel better that the government is "taking care of them" so you don't have to bother!!
How many poor folks did you vist the last week and help them?
When the government acts to promote the general welfare of its citizens, we Liberals do not see that action as subversive. And when the government acts to promote the general welfare of its citizens, there are no ecclesiastical strings attached. And more poor are actually served at a more consistent quality and rate.No, not at all. I'm frustrated by Conservatives who support policy without any actual knowledge of the consequences of those policies. and then those same Conservatives somehow can act smug and self-righteous while kicking a poor person out of the way.
Complete and utter BS, my conservative friends always help those in need. A concept the Dems can't understand because they EXPECT the government to take care it, they don't want to be bothered with such trivial stuff. It makes the Dems guiltless because the government handles their poor.
Shouldn't you have said "Some of my best friends are Conservatives!"? "My conservative friends" is so limiting in scope that no one can reasonably expect the poor to be adequately
To progressives the general welfare clause bestows virtually unlimited power upon the Feds. That is why they would like to see more and more of the wealth of the citizenry confiscated. It's for the general welfare. They know much better than you how to spend your money.
Nobody minds others having what they need. Some of us expect individual needs to be met by every one else. I think the determination of what one needs is best left to the individual. But, I am not a progressive....I can still remeber that Okie pioneer pride growing up in the sixties. In rural Oklahoma my family was well off, but I saw some people that had been sick or crippled not able to feed or clothe their family. I saw children running in underwear because that is all they had to wear, cause i would go with my Papa and visit this family and give them my old clothes.
I saw kids eating wish sanwiches, when they were available. living in shot-gun shacks with no heat or air and electricity that had been installed in the 1930's. Well water still hand pumped.
I usually played with the kids as my Papa took his gifts of love to these people, their father was bed riiden and could not maintain his farm anymore. No one seemed to help this familly by us.
Oh, that evil pride... Things are much better now that we have an entire political party with a singular focus on providing handouts.
depends on ones outlook on life. I have all I need. i do not mind another having what they need.
A few lefty posters here HAVE suggested removing their kids... I suppose you can do that sort of thing if you feel you OWN somebody...
Did the USDA do that? Here's my take on it; if they just made them aware that they can qualify for food stamps, I have no problem with that. If they threatened them with civil or criminal action if they didn't take food stamps, then I would DEFINITELY have a problem with that.
I have a problem with the USDA spending money to teach people to have less pride and be more willing to apply for government assistant programs.
I have a serious problem with that.
No -- but if the hand that feeds you is widely supported by folks who would use that same hand to smack you up the side of yo head --- You gotta wonder about the REAL compassion and atruism going on here..
Do you think that the USDA should be shut down?
Much of it SHOULD be shut down.. Largely the 1/2 that PROMOTES agricultural products and issues the handouts to the farming industry.. And the Food programs COULD be scaled back even in these hard times with the massive growth they've experienced.
These food programs have conflicting goals.. There is pressure from PRODUCERS to get the govt to subsidize their excess capacity by giving it away.. And PROMOTING those businesses is as big a charter as REGULATING those businesses.. Conflicting mission statements...
Did the USDA do that? Here's my take on it; if they just made them aware that they can qualify for food stamps, I have no problem with that. If they threatened them with civil or criminal action if they didn't take food stamps, then I would DEFINITELY have a problem with that.
I have a problem with the USDA spending money to teach people to have less pride and be more willing to apply for government assistant programs.
I have a serious problem with that.
Are they holding mandatory classes? If someone that you that you could get foodstamps, would you do it?
When the government acts to promote the general welfare of its citizens, we Liberals do not see that action as subversive. And when the government acts to promote the general welfare of its citizens, there are no ecclesiastical strings attached. And more poor are actually served at a more consistent quality and rate.No, not at all. I'm frustrated by Conservatives who support policy without any actual knowledge of the consequences of those policies. and then those same Conservatives somehow can act smug and self-righteous while kicking a poor person out of the way.
Complete and utter BS, my conservative friends always help those in need. A concept the Dems can't understand because they EXPECT the government to take care it, they don't want to be bothered with such trivial stuff. It makes the Dems guiltless because the government handles their poor.
Shouldn't you have said "Some of my best friends are Conservatives!"? "My conservative friends" is so limiting in scope that no one can reasonably expect the poor to be adequately served.
When the government acts to promote the general welfare of its citizens, we Liberals do not see that action as subversive. And when the government acts to promote the general welfare of its citizens, there are no ecclesiastical strings attached. And more poor are actually served at a more consistent quality and rate.Complete and utter BS, my conservative friends always help those in need. A concept the Dems can't understand because they EXPECT the government to take care it, they don't want to be bothered with such trivial stuff. It makes the Dems guiltless because the government handles their poor.
Shouldn't you have said "Some of my best friends are Conservatives!"? "My conservative friends" is so limiting in scope that no one can reasonably expect the poor to be adequately
To progressives the general welfare clause bestows virtually unlimited power upon the Feds. That is why they would like to see more and more of the wealth of the citizenry confiscated. It's for the general welfare. They know much better than you how to spend your money.
That is the biggest crock of sheeit I have read in a long time.
I have a problem with the USDA spending money to teach people to have less pride and be more willing to apply for government assistant programs.
I have a serious problem with that.
Are they holding mandatory classes? If someone that you that you could get foodstamps, would you do it?
They ARE spending MILLIONS on prime TV airtime for slick commercials to make the Food Programs look trendy.. That -- kinda supports the folks here arguing that it's gone beyond atruism..
When the government acts to promote the general welfare of its citizens, we Liberals do not see that action as subversive. And when the government acts to promote the general welfare of its citizens, there are no ecclesiastical strings attached. And more poor are actually served at a more consistent quality and rate.
Shouldn't you have said "Some of my best friends are Conservatives!"? "My conservative friends" is so limiting in scope that no one can reasonably expect the poor to be adequately
To progressives the general welfare clause bestows virtually unlimited power upon the Feds. That is why they would like to see more and more of the wealth of the citizenry confiscated. It's for the general welfare. They know much better than you how to spend your money.
That is the biggest crock of sheeit I have read in a long time.
Just wait, I'm sure he'll post again.
And you'll think, "No, THIS is the biggest crock of sheeit I have read..."
and so it goes.
Did the USDA do that? Here's my take on it; if they just made them aware that they can qualify for food stamps, I have no problem with that. If they threatened them with civil or criminal action if they didn't take food stamps, then I would DEFINITELY have a problem with that.
I have a problem with the USDA spending money to teach people to have less pride and be more willing to apply for government assistant programs.
I have a serious problem with that.
Are they holding mandatory classes? If someone that you that you could get foodstamps, would you do it?
