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.
Rather than resisting Democrats, many Republicans in power have sealed their fate, and ultimately the fate of the culture of this country.
They went to required sensitivity training in order to keep their jobs.
Once you successfully institutionalize acceptable responses ... Then any appearance of resistance is merely lip service.
It is easier for one half of the country or the other to believe "their party" is standing for them ... As long as they can blame the other half and its party for their own failures.
Basically ... You can two parties that end up doing the same things in the long run ... But you still have someone else to blame for all the crap you screwed up or didn't do.
.
If Americans would get off their dead asses and work, there would be no need for them to bring in foreigners. Some of the jobs may not pay great, but you can make a living off of them. The problem is not greedy company owners, the problem is they are competing with our federal and state government for employees. If welfare pays more or close to working, why work?
Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income
HUD's New 'Fair Housing' Rule Establishes Diversity Data for Every Neighborhood in U.S.
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
Well, in functional societies they raise wages when they have trouble filling positions, in dysfunctional societies when they have trouble filing positions they lower wages by bringing in foreigners.
Can you guess which society we are in the U.S?
True. I've been against immigration for many years now because of it. But it's a double edged sword. On one side you have foreigners keeping down wages, and on the other you have government keeping workers out of the workforce. The two need to be addressed severely. We need to cut down on social goodies and quit bringing in people to disrupt the supply and demand process of employment.
Well, subsidizing wages without work, to keep people idle is ridiculous.
But, it's also ridiculous to have people dying from no food in a modern society.
The problem is like with anything else government--it all boils down to politics.
Democrats want to create as many government dependents as possible. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. Republican led states have shown us these programs were not necessary for a lot of people. So it's a fight between two parties: one that wants people on the dole, and the other that wants people off of it.
So the foundation of the debate is who needs it and who doesn't. You won't find many Republicans who don't want to help the "truly" needy, but you also find Democrats who want to help anybody that asks for it whether they need it or not.
I don't like either party.
In Europe most of the right-Wingers are still for National Healthcare, they just are far more socially Right-Wing than Republicans, being far more anti-Abortion, and far more anti-Immigration than Republicans.
Especially in Poland, and Hungary.
Republicans really goofed up, though.
They could have fought Roe vs Wade, and could have fought Affirmative Action, they could have fought immigration.
Instead overwhelmingly the Republicans in power caved in on Abortion, and Multiculturalism.
Rather than resisting Democrats, many Republicans in power have sealed their fate, and ultimately the fate of the culture of this country.
So, then we feed them what we feel necessary. Nothing wrong with eating normal food instead of living on Pop Tarts. Where were you when Mooochelle instituted her school lunch program? Kids quit eating lunch. They brought candy bars to school instead.
Results and accountability aren't important to Progressives ... It's only the intent that counts.
They can demand you work to feed someone else who gives you nothing in return ... And then suggest you providing them with food is akin to slavery if they don't want what you give them.
Even if you want to help people ... You cannot fight nor change that kind of stupid ...
.
And then suggest you providing them with food is akin to slavery if they don't want what you give them.
Apparently Republican H.W Bush signed that Diversity Visa Bill into power.
That's just one of many Republican Presidential f*ck ups.
Nixon's Minority Business Development Agency.
Reagan's Amnesty for millions of illegal Hispanics.
W Bush's law for making it harder to deport illegal minors.
A lot of the Republicans must be dumb, and weak as hell to do this.
Why are they so supportive of Democrat leading minorities to grow in numbers?
Exactly. So you think if food stamps only allows what the government deems appropriate, and the kids don't eat it, they can just go hungry? One way to single them out from the rest of the population and tell them they are second class beings. One way to create eating disorders as well as psychological disorders. You don't treat people badly because they are poor. Especially not children.45% of food stamp benefits go to children....do you really hate innocent children that much? How very Victorian and MEAN SPIRITED.And for a lot of people, hunger is not a choice--especially children.How is that slavery? If you don't like what we provide, then buy your own food like everybody else. Slavery was never a choice.
If you're really hungry, you'll eat anything.
So, then we feed them what we feel necessary. Nothing wrong with eating normal food instead of living on Pop Tarts. Where were you when Mooochelle instituted her school lunch program? Kids quit eating lunch. They brought candy bars to school instead.
Well I do think she did hit on a point--only in reverse.
I have to go to work and support myself. The government takes the money I work for and gives it to those who don't work, work very little, or otherwise made a lot of bad decisions in life. So if anybody is a slave, it's me and all the other working taxpayers out there. Because if you take some of the money I work for, I am in essence working for free to provide for others just like the slaves did.
The French people were right. You don't treat people who are poor as if they are low lifes. Anyway, as I said, 45% of the recipients of food stamps are children. Why are you so mean about them? They aren't causing their poverty. Your attitude is very Victorian. If you don't understand what that means, read some Dickens. Anyone with a half decent education has read Dickens and/or knows about Victorian England and how children suffered in poverty.Exactly. So you think if food stamps only allows what the government deems appropriate, and the kids don't eat it, they can just go hungry? One way to single them out from the rest of the population and tell them they are second class beings. One way to create eating disorders as well as psychological disorders. You don't treat people badly because they are poor. Especially not children.45% of food stamp benefits go to children....do you really hate innocent children that much? How very Victorian and MEAN SPIRITED.And for a lot of people, hunger is not a choice--especially children.
If you're really hungry, you'll eat anything.
So, then we feed them what we feel necessary. Nothing wrong with eating normal food instead of living on Pop Tarts. Where were you when Mooochelle instituted her school lunch program? Kids quit eating lunch. They brought candy bars to school instead.
HTF is providing people with food treating them badly??????
When I was growing up, my mother made some things I didn't care for. Back then, it was eat your supper and shut up. If you don't, no desert.
My how things have changed. Somehow, providing people with food is now evil unless you present them with a generous menu to boot.
This is exactly what's wrong with our social programs. Kind of reminds me of years ago when France decided not to provide movie tickets to their loafers. The French people were outraged. How dare the government not give these nonworking losers something to do. What are they to do now, just sit home??? How inconsiderate.
The French people were right. You don't treat people who are poor as if they are low lifes. Anyway, as I said, 45% of the recipients of food stamps are children. Why are you so mean about them? They aren't causing their poverty. Your attitude is very Victorian. If you don't understand what that means, read some Dickens. Anyone with a half decent education has read Dickens and/or knows about Victorian England and how children suffered in poverty.Exactly. So you think if food stamps only allows what the government deems appropriate, and the kids don't eat it, they can just go hungry? One way to single them out from the rest of the population and tell them they are second class beings. One way to create eating disorders as well as psychological disorders. You don't treat people badly because they are poor. Especially not children.45% of food stamp benefits go to children....do you really hate innocent children that much? How very Victorian and MEAN SPIRITED.If you're really hungry, you'll eat anything.
So, then we feed them what we feel necessary. Nothing wrong with eating normal food instead of living on Pop Tarts. Where were you when Mooochelle instituted her school lunch program? Kids quit eating lunch. They brought candy bars to school instead.
HTF is providing people with food treating them badly??????
When I was growing up, my mother made some things I didn't care for. Back then, it was eat your supper and shut up. If you don't, no desert.
My how things have changed. Somehow, providing people with food is now evil unless you present them with a generous menu to boot.
This is exactly what's wrong with our social programs. Kind of reminds me of years ago when France decided not to provide movie tickets to their loafers. The French people were outraged. How dare the government not give these nonworking losers something to do. What are they to do now, just sit home??? How inconsiderate.
What's the matter dear? Didn't YOUR food stamps arrive on time this month?1) The cost of food stamps is a small fraction of the overall welfare budget
2) 2/3 of those on food stamps are kids
3) Few people even qualify for food stamps because it is reserved for the poorest of the poor. It's a program way behind on the rate of inflation as well.
4) Some Veterans are on food stamps.
5) Any adult on food stamps has a job
Republicans in congress are either complete assholes or are willfully ignorant.
But hey i get it: it gives republicans hard ons to say "i don't need a handout! I provide! I'm tough as nails! Derp, derp, derp!" They then pretend complete falsehoods or stereotypes about the program because it makes them feel more manly i guess.
Why can't facts ever permeate the republican bubble?
the right wing is more about the bottom line than social justice.Over his entire time in office it raised about 40% not 70%. I'm not sure if you're lying or just don't know what you're talking about, most likely the latter.
From the Washington times:
Enrollment in the food stamp program — officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — has soared by 70 percent in the years since President Obama first took office, a new report finds.
Food stamp president: Enrollment up 70 percent under Obama
We would also still have, capitalism's, not socialism's, natural rate of unemployment, even if everyone was required to obtain a doctorate to work.My point is their paychecks are too low especially when analyzed in comparison with the cost of living. They can't make ends meet and we all pick up the slack.
I can't afford to keep subsidizing Wal-Mart workers. But the waltons can. And the waltons hired them so it should be on them to pay a living wage.
Here is a really crazy idea: instead of making it Walmart's responsibility to pay a living wage, why not make it the workers responsibility to do something that deserves a living wage?
Even if 100% of the population were educated, then we'd still have to have a large portion of the population doing menial jobs, because that's what the economy demands.
We have a mixed-market economy. Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. It simply makes, rational choice theory sense, to have a minimum wage at fifteen dollars an hour.Taxation is not theft so that's another silly analogy. A living wage depends on the place but it takes into consideration living costs in the specific area and what wages put you over or under the national poverty guideline. For example, right now minimum wage is NOT a living wage. Families can not make ends meet on minimum wage.Depends on what you consider "their own."Republicans love it when the poor suffer! They'll work for less money so the rich can make even more.
They hate helping the poor. But they'll give the rich even more!
The rich don't "get" more, they keep more of their own. Big difference.
The workers are the ones putting in the hours, not the owners. Workers make money hand over fist for their companies and are not getting paid a living wage. Their living costs are then subsidized by the tax payers in the form of social welfare.
Why do you feel like the top 1% should get everything and the bottom 99 should fight over scraps? That's the American dream?
You leftists with this "get" BS. There are people who "get" and people who get theirs taken away. But the people who get less taken away are not getting anything.
If you and I were neighbors, and I went into your dresser drawer and stole $100.00 every week when you went to walk your dog, but after a while felt guilty, so I began only stealing $80.00 a week, does that mean I gave you $20.00 per week?
And what is a living wage anyway? Do you have a dollar figure?
Your wage is determined by how easily you could be replaced by your employer. If your employer can find somebody to do your job and same quality work for the same money, that's all you are worth. If he can find somebody for less money, then you are overpaid. If he can only find somebody for more money per hour, then you were underpaid.
In most cases, people are paid properly. Now if you don't like the money you're making, learn to do something that makes you worth more money. Nobody is going to pay you cadillac money for your Honda Civic.
Working 40 hours a week is hard. I do it every week. I spend more time at work than I do at home (awake), I miss time with my family, i miss time with my kids. If someone is working 40 hours a week they should be making enough to pay their rent whether they're flipping burgers or running a company. Any American working 40 hours a week shouldn't have to worry about how they will feed their kids. Period. That's how I feel.
Minimum wage jobs are still necessary and a huge part of our economy. Minimum wage needs to provide a living wage.
Why, because that's the way you think?
Minimum wage was never designed TO be a living wage. Correct, you cannot raise a family on minimum wage. That's why you shouldn't have kids if all you can do is minimum wage work. That's not Walmart's fault if you had children you couldn't afford. That's your fault.
Audit defense spending first, not general welfare spending!Only people who qualify for food stamps are approved to receive food stamps. Trust me, if they qualify then they need it.
Or they deliberately keep their income low enough to get or stay on food stamps.
Audit the USDA.
Like asking the rich to forgo tax breaks when we have massive debt.My point is their paychecks are too low especially when analyzed in comparison with the cost of living. They can't make ends meet and we all pick up the slack.
I can't afford to keep subsidizing Wal-Mart workers. But the waltons can. And the waltons hired them so it should be on them to pay a living wage.
Here is a really crazy idea: instead of making it Walmart's responsibility to pay a living wage, why not make it the workers responsibility to do something that deserves a living wage?
Even if 100% of the population were educated, then we'd still have to have a large portion of the population doing menial jobs, because that's what the economy demands.
It doesn't have to be college education. There is nothing wrong with getting training to do manual labor and securing a trade.
Take my industry for instance. Currently we are short over 30,000 drivers, and that's expected to go up in the coming years. Companies can't find Americans to do the work, so they are bringing in foreigners to do it.
I'm not getting rich, but I can make a living. Some companies will not only train you and get you licensed, but they will pay you while you learn. You only have to sign a one year contract in return. After that one year, you are free to take on any of the thousands of jobs that are currently vacant.
But you can't get Americans to do these jobs. They have their Obama phone, they have their SNAP's card, they have their HUD house in the suburbs, they have free medical care for themselves and their family. Why work???
Isn't there something wrong with this picture?
Foreigners bought in?
Americans will do any job if paid enough.
The problem is the sinister shyster Capitalists, who want to bust your balls just for extra cash by bringing in foreigners to work for less than you, because they don't want to pay you more.
If Americans would get off their dead asses and work, there would be no need for them to bring in foreigners. Some of the jobs may not pay great, but you can make a living off of them. The problem is not greedy company owners, the problem is they are competing with our federal and state government for employees. If welfare pays more or close to working, why work?
Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income
HUD's New 'Fair Housing' Rule Establishes Diversity Data for Every Neighborhood in U.S.
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
And those that had shared with those that didn't. It's very common on this forum for rightwingers to totally miss the point. The point of food stamps is for the haves to share, via taxes, with the have nots. Not to dictate what the have nots are allowed.You people are so mean spirited. How do you expect to get into heaven when you are so mean spirited? How do you think Jesus fed the thousands? They shared. Jesus was a fucking communist.Why do you favor forcing people to eat what you think is appropriate? Tuna is disgusting, as bad as Spam. You think because people are poor you can dictate to them what to eat, where to live, what to wear, how to live.I am all for helping those who are poor, but the current system is broken. Give vouchers that must be used for certain foods only....milk, eggs, bread, milk, cheese, oatmeal, canned meats, fruit/veg, etc. You don't see too many food stamp users buying canned tuna.....just saying
If someone is hungry, tuna is a t-boneWhy do you favor forcing people to eat what you think is appropriate?
Can't be that hungry if you gotta force them to eat...
beggars can't be choosersThank you...they ate what was provided!You people are so mean spirited. How do you expect to get into heaven when you are so mean spirited? How do you think Jesus fed the thousands? They shared. Jesus was a fucking communist.
Seriously: MEAN SPIRITED
It's very common on this forum for rightwingers to totally miss the point. The point of food stamps is for the haves to share, via taxes, with the have nots. Not to dictate what the have nots are allowed.
And this relates to the 45% of food stamp recipients who are children? How?And those that had shared with those that didn't. It's very common on this forum for rightwingers to totally miss the point. The point of food stamps is for the haves to share, via taxes, with the have nots. Not to dictate what the have nots are allowed.You people are so mean spirited. How do you expect to get into heaven when you are so mean spirited? How do you think Jesus fed the thousands? They shared. Jesus was a fucking communist.Why do you favor forcing people to eat what you think is appropriate? Tuna is disgusting, as bad as Spam. You think because people are poor you can dictate to them what to eat, where to live, what to wear, how to live.If someone is hungry, tuna is a t-boneWhy do you favor forcing people to eat what you think is appropriate?
Can't be that hungry if you gotta force them to eat...
beggars can't be choosersThank you...they ate what was provided!You people are so mean spirited. How do you expect to get into heaven when you are so mean spirited? How do you think Jesus fed the thousands? They shared. Jesus was a fucking communist.
Seriously: MEAN SPIRITEDIt's very common on this forum for rightwingers to totally miss the point. The point of food stamps is for the haves to share, via taxes, with the have nots. Not to dictate what the have nots are allowed.
6 Go to the ant, you sluggard;
consider its ways and be wise!
7 It has no commander,
no overseer or ruler,
8 yet it stores its provisions in summer
and gathers its food at harvest.
9 How long will you lie there, you sluggard?
When will you get up from your sleep?
10 A little sleep, a little slumber,
a little folding of the hands to rest—
11 and poverty will come on you like a thief
and scarcity like an armed man.
Proverbs 6: 6-11
4 He who has a slack hand becomes poor,
But the hand of the diligent makes rich.
5 He who gathers in summer is a wise son;
He who sleeps in harvest is a son who causes shame.
Proverbs 10: 4,5
26 As vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes,
So is the lazy man to those who send him.
Proverbs 10:26
4 The soul of a lazy man desires, and has nothing;
But the soul of the diligent shall be made rich.
Proverbs 13:4
26 The person who labors, labors for himself,
For his hungry mouth drives him on.
Proverbs 16:26
15 Laziness casts one into a deep sleep,
And an idle person will suffer hunger.
Proverbs 19:15
No moron, its not the responsibility of the 'haves'
to foot the cost for someone else's food,
so they can have an iPhone, cable, internet,
video games, cigarettes, get their hair and nails done,
buy fast food and whatever else...
its not the responsibility of the 'haves' to give,
so 'have nots' don't have to give up something else
Well, in functional societies they raise wages when they have trouble filling positions, in dysfunctional societies when they have trouble filing positions they lower wages by bringing in foreigners.
Can you guess which society we are in the U.S?
True. I've been against immigration for many years now because of it. But it's a double edged sword. On one side you have foreigners keeping down wages, and on the other you have government keeping workers out of the workforce. The two need to be addressed severely. We need to cut down on social goodies and quit bringing in people to disrupt the supply and demand process of employment.
Well, subsidizing wages without work, to keep people idle is ridiculous.
But, it's also ridiculous to have people dying from no food in a modern society.
The problem is like with anything else government--it all boils down to politics.
Democrats want to create as many government dependents as possible. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. Republican led states have shown us these programs were not necessary for a lot of people. So it's a fight between two parties: one that wants people on the dole, and the other that wants people off of it.
So the foundation of the debate is who needs it and who doesn't. You won't find many Republicans who don't want to help the "truly" needy, but you also find Democrats who want to help anybody that asks for it whether they need it or not.
I don't like either party.
In Europe most of the right-Wingers are still for National Healthcare, they just are far more socially Right-Wing than Republicans, being far more anti-Abortion, and far more anti-Immigration than Republicans.
Especially in Poland, and Hungary.
Republicans really goofed up, though.
They could have fought Roe vs Wade, and could have fought Affirmative Action, they could have fought immigration.
Instead overwhelmingly the Republicans in power caved in on Abortion, and Multiculturalism.
Rather than resisting Democrats, many Republicans in power have sealed their fate, and ultimately the fate of the culture of this country.
Once the Supreme Court makes a ruling, there is little that politicians can do.
Yes, court decisions can be reversed, but to have the case heard again, a second defeat would be the last nail in the coffin. We have seen "supposedly" Republican justices stab us in the back before.
So I think what Republicans are doing now is the best strategy; be patient and wait.
True. I've been against immigration for many years now because of it. But it's a double edged sword. On one side you have foreigners keeping down wages, and on the other you have government keeping workers out of the workforce. The two need to be addressed severely. We need to cut down on social goodies and quit bringing in people to disrupt the supply and demand process of employment.
Well, subsidizing wages without work, to keep people idle is ridiculous.
But, it's also ridiculous to have people dying from no food in a modern society.
The problem is like with anything else government--it all boils down to politics.
Democrats want to create as many government dependents as possible. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. Republican led states have shown us these programs were not necessary for a lot of people. So it's a fight between two parties: one that wants people on the dole, and the other that wants people off of it.
So the foundation of the debate is who needs it and who doesn't. You won't find many Republicans who don't want to help the "truly" needy, but you also find Democrats who want to help anybody that asks for it whether they need it or not.
I don't like either party.
In Europe most of the right-Wingers are still for National Healthcare, they just are far more socially Right-Wing than Republicans, being far more anti-Abortion, and far more anti-Immigration than Republicans.
Especially in Poland, and Hungary.
Republicans really goofed up, though.
They could have fought Roe vs Wade, and could have fought Affirmative Action, they could have fought immigration.
Instead overwhelmingly the Republicans in power caved in on Abortion, and Multiculturalism.
Rather than resisting Democrats, many Republicans in power have sealed their fate, and ultimately the fate of the culture of this country.
Once the Supreme Court makes a ruling, there is little that politicians can do.
Yes, court decisions can be reversed, but to have the case heard again, a second defeat would be the last nail in the coffin. We have seen "supposedly" Republican justices stab us in the back before.
So I think what Republicans are doing now is the best strategy; be patient and wait.
When has this been a true Democracy where we voted on the issues?
Who do the Supreme Court think they are?
We elect our presidents, not our Supreme Court.
I'm sick of hearing about the poor poor children. Wah.
If these breeders would quit fucking around and having so many kids when they can't begin to afford it, they likely wouldn't need to go on welfare.
Public assistance should never ever be a permanent lifestyle.
