Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[Moonglow]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Because the poor and drug addicted are easier to control.

No they are not, what makes you think an addict is easy to control?

 

[danielpalos]

So.... let's cut out the food stamps and watch jobs pop up all over the place!!! Or maybe people can't find jobs and many who are working aren't making enough to get by. Maybe?

Plenty of jobs out there. Employers can't find Americans to do them because they are sitting home on their Obama phones getting fat on food stamps.

there is no unemployment, only underpayment.

 

[Moonglow]

So.... let's cut out the food stamps and watch jobs pop up all over the place!!! Or maybe people can't find jobs and many who are working aren't making enough to get by. Maybe?

Plenty of jobs out there. Employers can't find Americans to do them because they are sitting home on their Obama phones getting fat on food stamps.

There are no Oblama phones they now be Trump phones, live with it..No such animal as food stamps those died years ago...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So.... let's cut out the food stamps and watch jobs pop up all over the place!!! Or maybe people can't find jobs and many who are working aren't making enough to get by. Maybe?

Plenty of jobs out there. Employers can't find Americans to do them because they are sitting home on their Obama phones getting fat on food stamps.

There are no Oblama phones they now be Trump phones, live with it..No such animal as food stamps those died years ago...

Ah, so word games are now your new debate tool?

 

[Moonglow]

Most SNAP benefits are for the elderly and the children.. Since states require working or searching for work to receive benefits they aren't just sittin' on dat ass doing drugs or what evah mean shit you can conjure up...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why?

Because we aren't cruel bastards that like seeing people suffer
and two most people on food stamps work hard and don't get paid enough to choose between food and medication. Oh'yess, this goes back to point one.

Why do republicans enjoy cutting people off and watching them suffer?

Because giving leeches everything they want only made them lazier and more irresponsible. You want to continue that?

 

[Moonglow]

So.... let's cut out the food stamps and watch jobs pop up all over the place!!! Or maybe people can't find jobs and many who are working aren't making enough to get by. Maybe?

Plenty of jobs out there. Employers can't find Americans to do them because they are sitting home on their Obama phones getting fat on food stamps.

There are no Oblama phones they now be Trump phones, live with it..No such animal as food stamps those died years ago...

Ah, so word games are now your new debate tool?

If you can't stay current don't stay at all. Trump is the president, and the phone assistance for the poor started under Reagan, yeah word games for a word gamer..

 

[Hal-9000]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Because the poor and drug addicted are easier to control.

No they are not, what makes you think an addict is easy to control?

Addiction is a form of sleep, for all types of drugs, even uppers

 

[Moonglow]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Because the poor and drug addicted are easier to control.

No they are not, what makes you think an addict is easy to control?

Addiction is a form of sleep, for all types of drugs, even uppers

Yeah you go with that...How many years as an addict do you have?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So.... let's cut out the food stamps and watch jobs pop up all over the place!!! Or maybe people can't find jobs and many who are working aren't making enough to get by. Maybe?

Plenty of jobs out there. Employers can't find Americans to do them because they are sitting home on their Obama phones getting fat on food stamps.

There are no Oblama phones they now be Trump phones, live with it..No such animal as food stamps those died years ago...

Ah, so word games are now your new debate tool?

If you can't stay current don't stay at all. Trump is the president, and the phone assistance for the poor started under Reagan, yeah word games for a word gamer..

Hey, I didn't invent the term Obama Phone.........she did:

 

[Moonglow]

So.... let's cut out the food stamps and watch jobs pop up all over the place!!! Or maybe people can't find jobs and many who are working aren't making enough to get by. Maybe?

Plenty of jobs out there. Employers can't find Americans to do them because they are sitting home on their Obama phones getting fat on food stamps.

There are no Oblama phones they now be Trump phones, live with it..No such animal as food stamps those died years ago...

Ah, so word games are now your new debate tool?

If you can't stay current don't stay at all. Trump is the president, and the phone assistance for the poor started under Reagan, yeah word games for a word gamer..

Hey, I didn't invent the term Obama Phone.........she did:

That's nice..

 

[Likkmee]

The truth is neither party knows how to fix the problem. I also kbow12 dollars per hour is a metre pittance and one cannot live on that. So stay single...don't buy a house....don't have kids. Then people complain about low birth Tate's etc.those who are bad people that is.

Hard work, industry, thrift, family

Beer, wine, hos and hairhats.. Dat whey lifes at !

 

[Hal-9000]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Because the poor and drug addicted are easier to control.

No they are not, what makes you think an addict is easy to control?

Addiction is a form of sleep, for all types of drugs, even uppers

Yeah you go with that...How many years as an addict do you have?

Is that the best u got?

 

[Hossfly]

So.... let's cut out the food stamps and watch jobs pop up all over the place!!! Or maybe people can't find jobs and many who are working aren't making enough to get by. Maybe?

Plenty of jobs out there. Employers can't find Americans to do them because they are sitting home on their Obama phones getting fat on food stamps.

There are no Oblama phones they now be Trump phones, live with it..No such animal as food stamps those died years ago...

Ah, so word games are now your new debate tool?

If you can't stay current don't stay at all. Trump is the president, and the phone assistance for the poor started under Reagan, yeah word games for a word gamer..

Hey, I didn't invent the term Obama Phone.........she did:

Hey!! Isn't that tigerred59 ?

 

[Moonglow]

Plenty of jobs out there. Employers can't find Americans to do them because they are sitting home on their Obama phones getting fat on food stamps.

There are no Oblama phones they now be Trump phones, live with it..No such animal as food stamps those died years ago...

Ah, so word games are now your new debate tool?

If you can't stay current don't stay at all. Trump is the president, and the phone assistance for the poor started under Reagan, yeah word games for a word gamer..

Hey, I didn't invent the term Obama Phone.........she did:

Hey!! Isn't that tigerred59 ?

Hush yo mouf..

 

[sartre play]

No one want's MORE people to be on food support, many people want food support for children & family's so they don't starve.
Yes its a bummer the % of people who could work but choice to scam.
find a solution to cutting out the scam's, maybe?
not feeding children, a non starter. children can not pull them self's up by there boot straps, .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No one want's MORE people to be on food support, many people want food support for children & family's so they don't starve.
Yes its a bummer the % of people who could work but choice to scam.
find a solution to cutting out the scam's, maybe?
not feeding children, a non starter. children can not pull them self's up by there boot straps, .

Yes, there are people who want more government dependents, they are called Democrats.

Both parties want to expand their tent. The two largest support groups for Democrats are government dependents and victims. The more victims and dependents they create, the better chance of getting their votes. It only makes sense for them to do so.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

AFAIK, Democrats have never asserted that they do indeed "want more people on food stamps and welfare." What Democrats want is that food stamps and welfare be made available to people who need either.

While Republicans want an economy where as few as possible need government welfare.

I was trying to find something that I clearly remember Ronald Reagan saying, but wasn't able to. Something along the lines of Democrats defining success by how many people government helps, and Republicans defining success by how many people don't need help from government.

I did find this authenticated quote from him: “Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.”

Republicans want an economy where as few as possible need government welfare.

Republicans do not have exclusive rights to that sentiment.

“Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.”

I, for one, agree with that sentiment. I think Democrats and Republicans alike agree with it.

What's important to understand is that we use strict financial position to define the measure of individuals' need for welfare. That's fine, but in doing so, it also results in our construing those individuals' financial position as the problem. Among most folks their financial status is the result of mistakes they made; however, for some of those people, it is a function of things beyond their control and/or ability to, as individuals, influence profoundly. Accordingly, if we commit to repurposing welfare so that it "eliminates the need for its own existence," the welfare system would have to address not only the immediate basic need impoverished individuals have for food, clothing and shelter, but also the the multiplicity of factors over which few individuals, most especially poor ones, have control or material influence and that yet contribute to why they find themselves impoverished.

I have no objection to retasking welfare thus, but I realize too that doing so will necessarily entail a huge expansion of the scope of welfare's goals because the equation that describes the factors that give rise to the need for welfare is multivariate. At the moment, we administer and implement welfare roughly as though one factor, financial position, is what effects an individual's need for it. Doing so reflects an implicit assumption -- one's way out of poverty can, in effect, be purchased -- that sometimes bears out and other times does not.

To wit, and for simplicity, assume the equation f(x) = ± a(x) ± b^2 ± c ± d^3 ± e^2 describes the body of circumstances that create and/or maintain one's status as impoverished. While that equation has but five (highly simplified) factors, the equation for welfare has a good deal more, and like the factors in the equation, they have varying degrees of influence on what the "graph" of the causes of welfare, the equation, looks like. Some of those factors vary by and/or with the nature of other factors in the equation, which is to to say they're interrelated by more than their mere presence in the equation.

Because the need for welfare is not so simple as, say, f(x) = a(x), the country must find the will to address the causes of poverty beyond one's merely lacking money. Not having sufficient will to address the causes of poverty is why public assistance programs have been constrained to tossing money at poor people, and yet, that too is not the only reason our welfare system has been thus bridled. Another reason is that welfare money, from social order standpoint, functions as an opiate of sorts by keeping the poor masses (the poor don't comprise anything like the the bulk or even large percentage of the population, but because the population is large, there are millions of poor people) content enough that they remain disinclined to effect insurrection. There is also the matter that the cost of abating the causes of the need for public assistance is far greater than is the cost of providing enough money for poor folks to get by rather than "die in the streets."


Response to the political aspect of your remarks:

Having written the above, I have to note that state and federal governments indeed endeavor to mollify the impact factors that contribute to one's/family's enduring impoverished status. For example, recognizing that among the most influential factors in the "equation" that describes the causes of poverty is education, we spend billions to ensure that everyone who qualifies to do so can obtain the education they need so they can become qualified to obtain jobs that pay enough for them to achieve a middle-class financial status. Similarly, we have governmental organizations, for example, the Small Business Administration, that facilitate "little guys" acting on their enterprising ideas and successfully in doing so.

As goes the matter of Republican and Democratic approaches to reducing the impact of factors that militate for one's becoming and/or remaining impoverished, I ask what direct action do Republican advocate for doing so, that is, what do Republicans assert governments do to make "welfare" (realizing that welfare is more than just the direct cash and cash equivalent resources that poor people receive) catalyze the end of the need for its own existence? I ask that question because when I hear GOP policy makers talk about government programs, what I hear is advocacy for curtailing the scope and means of government programs that do just that. For example: About That Bill Abolishing The Department Of Education. I'm willing to accede that plenty of government assistance programs are less effective than they have the potential to be; however that suggests that the programs need to be redesigned, not eliminated. While some of those programs may so ineffectual that they deserve only to be eliminated, that isn't the case with all of them, and certainly not the whole of the DoEd. In short, one must have a more critically thinking "eye" than I see Republicans, as a party, exhibit. [1]


Note:

1. Of course, there are sagacious Republicans, but they currently comprise neither the dominant number nor voice in the GOP.
   • How GOP Intellectuals’ Feud With the Base Is Remaking U.S. Politics
     
   • The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party | Dana Nuccitelli
     
   • The GOP's intellectual collapse
     
   • Intellectuals for Trump
     
   • A policy expert explains how anti-intellectualism gave rise to Donald Trump
     
   • The roots of Donald Trump’s anti-intellectualism
     
   • Deconstructing Anti-intellectualism
     
   • The End Of A Republican Party

 

[rightwinger]

Hey....I gotta great idea

Lets create more jobs and then we won't need as many people on food stamps and welfare
If people get jobs, they won't need it anymore

But it looks like even though we have millions of new jobs, pay has not increased. We have frozen minimum wage for the last 9 years and low skilled pay has been stagnant
So, even though more people have jobs, they do not pay well enough to get people off the dole

But there is good news...
We just cut corporate taxes in half so it looks like they can afford to pay their employees more. I also have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you

 

[danielpalos]

No one want's MORE people to be on food support, many people want food support for children & family's so they don't starve.
Yes its a bummer the % of people who could work but choice to scam.
find a solution to cutting out the scam's, maybe?
not feeding children, a non starter. children can not pull them self's up by there boot straps, .

Yes, there are people who want more government dependents, they are called Democrats.

Both parties want to expand their tent. The two largest support groups for Democrats are government dependents and victims. The more victims and dependents they create, the better chance of getting their votes. It only makes sense for them to do so.

Unlike our right wing alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, that creates jobs for right wingers by jailing the left.