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.
Oh Christ. Even if you were correct that these women you observed were on food stamps (which is obviously a wild assumption), what you are saying is anecdotal. What matters is the actual statistics on food stamps.Lol you know plenty of women who profit off of having children? How do you know? How do you know they had these kids to get benefits? Are you sure you aren't just making a bigoted assumption? And again, based on the actual facts about food stamps, mothers do not profit off of it even if they wanted to. And are you so nosy that you pay attention to how these women pay for their items? Can't you mind your own business? Talk about being a self righteous asshole. And okay, yeah, they do spend cash on such things if they can afford them. So what? Are they not allowed to spend any income they make? Again, the income they get is complete shit anyway. These people are dirt poor.Yeah she probably does. And? She is being stretched pretty thin on the dirt poor income she is on.Ok I don't understand why you people think so one dimensionally about this issue. My point is what we do with the child. You speak as though we are talking about someone not being able to make their monthly car payments. We are talking about a human being. So because the mother can't take of her kid, we should let the kid starve to death? Don't you see how that's a problem. Giving food stamps to a mother isn't about her. It's about the kid she is raising.
So you don't think the mother uses the food that comes from those food stamps?
Our government gives incentives for poor people to have children, then we can't figure out why we can't solve poverty?
That's like saying I can't solve the problem of the raccoon digging in my garbage can, but I keep the lid off all night and throw away good food that I couldn't finish for dinner every night.
If you can't take care of your kids, they should be put up for adoption. While not the most humane thing to do, it would stop the incentive for these poor people to have children, and then there would be less of them in the future.
Incentives to have children? Ok so obviously you know nothing about the actual facts of food stamps. On average, a household gets about $133 per month per person as a supplement to an income that is on average $744 per month. Do you really think a mother is profiting off of $133 per month? Do you not even know how much it costs to raise a child? You see these facts matter.
So your fascist solution to this problem is for parents to be forced to put up their kids for adoption? So its better for the government to separate families then to pay for a welfare program? Hmm. Ok so lets go with this for a moment. You do realize that people aren't just lining up to adopt kids right? It's relatively uncommon. There's no way such small demand for adopted children would fix the actual problem.
As I pointed out, it might not for them, but in the future, women would be fearful of losing their child to adoption and maybe....just maybe they would be a little more responsible about having children in the first place.
I know of plenty of women that had children just to get more government benefits. It's really not too much of a secret in the ghetto. Do you think I don't see how many children these mothers have with them when they get in front of me at the grocery store counter? Do you think I don't notice what kind of food items they are buying? Do you think I'm making it all up when I tell you about the greeting cards they buy with cash, and cigarettes, and beer, and sacks of dog food, and cat litter? I don't know about these things?
Dirt poor, huh?
If they are so dirt poor, why do they smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol? If they are so dirt poor, why do they need a 50 lbs. dog to take care of? If they are so dirt poor, what's with all that cat litter they buy?
Yeah, you bet I notice what people are doing with my tax money. It is my business. Why shouldn't I notice? You lefties rant on about how the rich should pay for this, how the rich should pay for that, how much the rich should pay their employees, how much more they should pay in taxes, but dare a taxpayer sound off about the abuse of his money, now you've crossed the line.
This is one of the many problems we have with you libs: you're fine with working people paying for others food, but in the meantime, they are feeding their animals instead of themselves. But we are the heartless ones.
If you make any form of charity voluntary then there would be little to no support for these types of individuals.What is wrong with helping people who need help?Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.
IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******
.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.
.
.
Imagine what would happen if employment benefits were entirely voluntary. Sure, you think UE is a horrible program like any other libertarian, but imagine what would happen if this country fell into another Great Recession where 8 MILLION people lost their jobs within less than a year. Do you remember any charitable rich people giving a helping hand to those 8 million unemployed in the last recession? No of course not because they didn't. Obama had to extend the benefits through legislation to keep those people afloat. Imagine if you lost your job against your will in the time of a great recession and you realized it was next to impossible for you to find another job to support your family. I am willing to bet that if you were in such desperate situation you would turn to benefits after awhile...
You being against this program from a philosophical standpoint says nothing about its viability.If you make any form of charity voluntary then there would be little to no support for these types of individuals.What is wrong with helping people who need help?Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.
IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******
.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.
.
.
Imagine what would happen if employment benefits were entirely voluntary. Sure, you think UE is a horrible program like any other libertarian, but imagine what would happen if this country fell into another Great Recession where 8 MILLION people lost their jobs within less than a year. Do you remember any charitable rich people giving a helping hand to those 8 million unemployed in the last recession? No of course not because they didn't. Obama had to extend the benefits through legislation to keep those people afloat. Imagine if you lost your job against your will in the time of a great recession and you realized it was next to impossible for you to find another job to support your family. I am willing to bet that if you were in such desperate situation you would turn to benefits after awhile...
BE THAT AS IT MAY , IN A FREE COUNTRY , CHARITY MUST BE VOLUNTARY.
Charity is Best Left to the Private Sphere
Unfortunately, politicians no longer take the time to consider that their actions, though well-intentioned, are ill-advised at best and unconstitutional at worst. They fail to recognize that charity cannot be coerced; it must be given freely. In order to demonstrate their compassionfor disaster victims (or welfare recipients, the elderly, and any number of interest groups), politicians must necessarily take money from some in the form of taxes in order to relieve the suffering of others. But is it benevolent to take from one man without his consent and give to another? Does this not necessarily create new hardship for the many others forced to contribute to the government bureaucracy?
.
You being against this program from a philosophical standpoint says nothing about its viability.If you make any form of charity voluntary then there would be little to no support for these types of individuals.What is wrong with helping people who need help?Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.
IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******
.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.
.
.
Imagine what would happen if employment benefits were entirely voluntary. Sure, you think UE is a horrible program like any other libertarian, but imagine what would happen if this country fell into another Great Recession where 8 MILLION people lost their jobs within less than a year. Do you remember any charitable rich people giving a helping hand to those 8 million unemployed in the last recession? No of course not because they didn't. Obama had to extend the benefits through legislation to keep those people afloat. Imagine if you lost your job against your will in the time of a great recession and you realized it was next to impossible for you to find another job to support your family. I am willing to bet that if you were in such desperate situation you would turn to benefits after awhile...
BE THAT AS IT MAY , IN A FREE COUNTRY , CHARITY MUST BE VOLUNTARY.
Charity is Best Left to the Private Sphere
Unfortunately, politicians no longer take the time to consider that their actions, though well-intentioned, are ill-advised at best and unconstitutional at worst. They fail to recognize that charity cannot be coerced; it must be given freely. In order to demonstrate their compassionfor disaster victims (or welfare recipients, the elderly, and any number of interest groups), politicians must necessarily take money from some in the form of taxes in order to relieve the suffering of others. But is it benevolent to take from one man without his consent and give to another? Does this not necessarily create new hardship for the many others forced to contribute to the government bureaucracy?
.
If you make any form of charity voluntary then there would be little to no support for these types of individuals.What is wrong with helping people who need help?Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.
IN A FREE COUNTRY CHARITY SHOULD BE ****VOLUNTARY*******
.SECONDLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL LARGESSE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO ELECT WELFARE STATE POLITICIANS LIKE COMRADE SANDERS AND SINCE THEY DON'T OWN PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO KEEP TAXES LOW. THEY SHOULD NOT BE PART OF JURIES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.
.
.
Imagine what would happen if employment benefits were entirely voluntary. Sure, you think UE is a horrible program like any other libertarian, but imagine what would happen if this country fell into another Great Recession where 8 MILLION people lost their jobs within less than a year. Do you remember any charitable rich people giving a helping hand to those 8 million unemployed in the last recession? No of course not because they didn't. Obama had to extend the benefits through legislation to keep those people afloat. Imagine if you lost your job against your will in the time of a great recession and you realized it was next to impossible for you to find another job to support your family. I am willing to bet that if you were in such desperate situation you would turn to benefits after awhile...
BE THAT AS IT MAY , IN A FREE COUNTRY , CHARITY MUST BE VOLUNTARY.
Charity is Best Left to the Private Sphere
Unfortunately, politicians no longer take the time to consider that their actions, though well-intentioned, are ill-advised at best and unconstitutional at worst. They fail to recognize that charity cannot be coerced; it must be given freely. In order to demonstrate their compassionfor disaster victims (or welfare recipients, the elderly, and any number of interest groups), politicians must necessarily take money from some in the form of taxes in order to relieve the suffering of others. But is it benevolent to take from one man without his consent and give to another? Does this not necessarily create new hardship for the many others forced to contribute to the government bureaucracy?
.
It never was intended to end poverty. It was another way for dems to keep their voters in perpetual generational poverty and keep the votes rolling in. Dems could care less about anyone's welfare.
It never was intended to end poverty. It was another way for dems to keep their voters in perpetual generational poverty and keep the votes rolling in. Dems could care less about anyone's welfare.
Can you "end" poverty?
We have spent trillions on a war machine and it hasn't ended war
It never was intended to end poverty. It was another way for dems to keep their voters in perpetual generational poverty and keep the votes rolling in. Dems could care less about anyone's welfare.
Can you "end" poverty?
We have spent trillions on a war machine and it hasn't ended war
Yes, "you can end poverty". Wars will never end. They'll continue to increase.
Are you so stupid to not know how republicans have contributed to the corporate welfare issue? Can republicans do no wrong in your eyes? Is that your warped thinking?I know. I can't help but come to the dramatic conclusion that it would be absolutely disasterous for a republican to win in 2016.They are an ignorant people. Lies are all they believe. It's their narrative.
Probably. Although I cant't tell the difference any more.
According to CATO:
Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget
Corporate welfare in the federal budget costs taxpayers almost $100 billion a year.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SNAP benefits cost $74.1 billion in fiscal year 2014
A large number of so-called "corporate welfare" programs are socialist boondoggles create by liberals.
Democrats are responsible for more corporate welfare than Democrats. Republicans can definitely do wrong, like rubber stamping Democrat social programs.
It never was intended to end poverty. It was another way for dems to keep their voters in perpetual generational poverty and keep the votes rolling in. Dems could care less about anyone's welfare.
Can you "end" poverty?
We have spent trillions on a war machine and it hasn't ended war
Yes, "you can end poverty". Wars will never end. They'll continue to increase.
Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.
Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.
No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?
rightwingnuts pretend people on the left believe certain things whether we believe them or not....and then insult us for "believing" the things they made up in their limited little brains.
Gosh, gee, I just can't imagine how anyone could get the wild idea that Democrats think welfare is the key to ending poverty! Shucks, where would anyone get such an idea? Truly, this is a deep mystery, just unfathomable.
Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.
Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.
No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?
rightwingnuts pretend people on the left believe certain things whether we believe them or not....and then insult us for "believing" the things they made up in their limited little brains.
And once again, leftwingnuts project their own faults and bullshit onto others.
Democrats are not about to end poverty.Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.
Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.
No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?
Democrats are not about to end poverty.Liberals do not believe welfare programs like food stamps are intended to lift people out of poverty. Such programs exist as an unfortunate safety net to the very poor. It is a necessary evil in an economy where wages for the poor are WAY behind on inflation. It is also important to note that 83% of households on food stamps have at least one child living in them. That means that even if you want to argue that any adult on food stamps is a self-defeating loser, it doesn't change the fact that kids in that family are in desperate need of proper nutrition for their development.
Conservatives like to argue that the poor are responsible for lifting themselves out of poverty, not the government. Now this is certainly true to a degree and is a fair point, but this logic ignores the nature of the economy that we live in. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher wage jobs and low wages are way behind on current cost of living standards. That means millions of people have NO CHOICE but to accept shitty paying jobs.
No liberal/democrat in general believes that welfare will end poverty. Have you noticed that one of the polcies of dems is to raise the minimum wage? Millions of people currently on welfare would no longer qualify for it if they made a decent wage.That is the ONLY way to fix poverty. Wages in the middle class and poor have been flat for DECADES while inflation is way ahead. What is the incentive for the private market to raise wages on its own if business owners can maximize profit by keeping wages so low?
Their specialty is creating it.
Look at "Follow teachings of Jesus". Hilarious.
