danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #321
There is no appeal to ignorance while diagnosing the Body politic, either.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If, if, if.You just don't know jack shit about how to cook.Are you fucking kidding me? Nutritious food is much cheaper? What planet do you live on? Nothing about that is true.Who said anything about lobster?Oh let me guess the famous "lobsters argument" right? They can buy lobsters? That's what you don't like? Christ dude, try to think realistically will you? The average person on SNAP gets about $133 per month and makes no more than $744 per MONTH. If they did buy lobsters, they would only be screwing themselves by going hungry.
Look, you're playing stupid to further a political point....
You know darned well what is basic nutritious foods which are far less expensive than convenience and junk food.
But to your side it is not politically correct to demand these people's food choices are limited to foods that can be easily made into nutritious meals.
Therein lies the problem, MOST people do not know how to cook nutritious meals.
SNAP should be phased out in favour of a program of commodities distribution and home gardening instructions and supplies.
And if that single parent works and doesn't have time to garden? Or lives in a condo or apartment complex? Or has no yard? Or just can't garden (like me - I have a black thumb)? What then?
Most people have some spare time, most people can find a small plot or use planters.
I am sure you can go on and on and on with excuses for people who have children they cannot support.
They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."
Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.
So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.
I defend it by claiming that if you bleeding hearts that think money you've earned should go to someone else that didn't earn it, write a check. Not a damn thing is stopping you from voluntarily sending more to the government or finding someone who can't afford it and giving them your money.
Why not solve for simple poverty and let market participants decide for themselves, what products to buy.If, if, if.You just don't know jack shit about how to cook.Are you fucking kidding me? Nutritious food is much cheaper? What planet do you live on? Nothing about that is true.Who said anything about lobster?
Look, you're playing stupid to further a political point....
You know darned well what is basic nutritious foods which are far less expensive than convenience and junk food.
But to your side it is not politically correct to demand these people's food choices are limited to foods that can be easily made into nutritious meals.
Therein lies the problem, MOST people do not know how to cook nutritious meals.
SNAP should be phased out in favour of a program of commodities distribution and home gardening instructions and supplies.
And if that single parent works and doesn't have time to garden? Or lives in a condo or apartment complex? Or has no yard? Or just can't garden (like me - I have a black thumb)? What then?
Most people have some spare time, most people can find a small plot or use planters.
I am sure you can go on and on and on with excuses for people who have children they cannot support.
Just how many on welfare do you think would ever grow food for themselves to eat, how much can each one grow, and just how much of a difference then would it make in welfare expenditures overall?
I defend it by claiming that if you bleeding hearts that think money you've earned should go to someone else that didn't earn it, write a check. Not a damn thing is stopping you from voluntarily sending more to the government or finding someone who can't afford it and giving them your money.
None of the money sending those checks to the government would not go to the needy.
I defend it by claiming that if you bleeding hearts that think money you've earned should go to someone else that didn't earn it, write a check. Not a damn thing is stopping you from voluntarily sending more to the government or finding someone who can't afford it and giving them your money.
None of the money sending those checks to the government would not go to the needy.
That's the problem with you bleeding hearts. The government doesn't even have to be involved in it. I gave an or option of you actually finding someone that can't afford it and giving them your money. You can do that if you really cared as much as you claim and the government wouldn't be a part of the process. That tells me you care only in words.
I defend it by claiming that if you bleeding hearts that think money you've earned should go to someone else that didn't earn it, write a check. Not a damn thing is stopping you from voluntarily sending more to the government or finding someone who can't afford it and giving them your money.
None of the money sending those checks to the government would not go to the needy.
That's the problem with you bleeding hearts. The government doesn't even have to be involved in it. I gave an or option of you actually finding someone that can't afford it and giving them your money. You can do that if you really cared as much as you claim and the government wouldn't be a part of the process. That tells me you care only in words.
That is rightfully done through charities.
I defend it by claiming that if you bleeding hearts that think money you've earned should go to someone else that didn't earn it, write a check. Not a damn thing is stopping you from voluntarily sending more to the government or finding someone who can't afford it and giving them your money.
None of the money sending those checks to the government would not go to the needy.
That's the problem with you bleeding hearts. The government doesn't even have to be involved in it. I gave an or option of you actually finding someone that can't afford it and giving them your money. You can do that if you really cared as much as you claim and the government wouldn't be a part of the process. That tells me you care only in words.
That is rightfully done through charities.
Too bad you bleeding hearts equate charity and taxes.
I defend it by claiming that if you bleeding hearts that think money you've earned should go to someone else that didn't earn it, write a check. Not a damn thing is stopping you from voluntarily sending more to the government or finding someone who can't afford it and giving them your money.
None of the money sending those checks to the government would not go to the needy.
That's the problem with you bleeding hearts. The government doesn't even have to be involved in it. I gave an or option of you actually finding someone that can't afford it and giving them your money. You can do that if you really cared as much as you claim and the government wouldn't be a part of the process. That tells me you care only in words.
That is rightfully done through charities.
Too bad you bleeding hearts equate charity and taxes.
When you donate, you get a deduction. What other correlation is there?
They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."
Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.
So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.