When arguing against SNAP for single mothers, why do repubs ignore the children themselves?

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.
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.
Are you fucking kidding me? Nutritious food is much cheaper? What planet do you live on? Nothing about that is true.
You just don't know jack shit about how to cook.

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?
If, if, if.
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?
 
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.


SOoo... You feel that someone other than the PARENTS of those children are... "RESPONSIBLE" for those children?

How curious... You seem to have some understanding of the concept 'responsibility', but no sense of how it actually works.

Amazing... .
 
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.
 
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.
Are you fucking kidding me? Nutritious food is much cheaper? What planet do you live on? Nothing about that is true.
You just don't know jack shit about how to cook.

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?
If, if, if.
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?
Why not solve for simple poverty and let market participants decide for themselves, what products to buy.
 
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.
 
Too bad the right can't seem to muster up enough Faith in Capitalism to make more money, with an official Mint, and lower taxes that way, rather than working with smoke and mirrors, but without any drugs involved for any drug related excuse.
 
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?
 
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?

I don't get one when my taxes go up because some bleeding heart like you thinks I should pay more.
 
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.

Link to Republicans wanting to starve children or take SNAP away from the needy.

The argument I've heard is that people aren't smart to start a big family with only a minimum wage job to support them. People do make poor choices and there should be some encouragement for them to improve their status instead of solely relying on handouts.

No one wants to starve children and that is merely a liberal talking point that has no basis in fact.

The stats you quote aren't accurate. States all admitted before that they cannot verify who is receiving food stamps and it all depends on what is put on a form. The information is not checked and people don't have to show proof of how many children they have. Sadly, this does leave the programs open to fraud and abuse. When something is being given away, people will find a way to get it every time.

There are widows who found themselves in a bad way after losing their husbands and a lot of other circumstances that left people in dire need. No one wants to turn their backs on them.

We do need to push for able bodied adults to do more on their end to improve their income through education and training. Bring back welfare to work and help people move towards independence. Why does that always scare liberals so much? Are you guys afraid that people handling their own needs won't vote for nanny government?

We have way too many high school girls getting pregnant and ending up on welfare forever. I won't say to young people that it's okay to do that. Once you make poor decisions, they will lead to hardship. Government aid can only help you exist, but cannot alone get your life back on track. Too many have been in the same place for decades and it's irresponsible not to address the core problem. People must put forth more effort and teach their children not to make the same mistakes they did. We have 4th and 5th generations of welare recipients in the same families and it's past time to break the cycle. Understanding that is key to preventing people from taking a dead end road. When children grow up seeing that government dependence is how their parents survive and government teaching victimhood and entitlement, all we see is people being lured into welfare.

Consequences are what make us change our ways. Starving children is not a consequence we should accept, which is why everyone supports caring for the children. While we need to ensure that families have a roof over their heads and food on the table, we can't allow them to settle for that for the rest of their lives. What is mean is liberals telling people they should rely on government and that government will save them. It's mean to keep people in a position where they wait and wait and never realize their full potential.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top