Feeding animals causes dependency..46 million americans on food stamps

[gallantwarrior]

Democrats LOVE the elderly, as long as aged parents and grandparents can still get a job and support the unemployable democrat in the basement playing video games. Just don't tell them to get a job, they got doobies to smoke.

Well...that, and the fact that they make great anecdotes to counter any logical and reasonable argument against their favorite social hand-out projects.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I noticed these two articles are posted in the same message. Does this imply a relationship between Americans and animals?

It points out the juxtaposition of two government positions. One article tells us not to feed animals because it destroys their will and ability to feed themselves.
The other article implies that humans are incapable of feeding themselves and must be provided hand outs in order to eat.
Somehow, if there's any comparison, I would think it is that the government considers people to be somehow less than animals since they cannot be expected to fend for themselves without being fed.

 

[Clementine]

But then too, here we have the paradox. It is deemed compassionate to give food stamps to the poor so that they can buy more food.

But if the poor show any initiative to provide for themselves and improve their situation, they can be punished by losing the free stuff they were getting for being poor.

It seems to me that the free stuff creates dependency just because once we are getting free stuff, we resist going back to a system in which we have to pay for that stuff.

And the government not only is doling out lots of free stuff and thereby running the risk of creating dependency, but it exacerbates it by threatening to withhold the free stuff if somebody betters themselves.

Seems to me the most foolish of fools could see how the Federal government is gradually but surely creating a nation of dependents instead of the responsible, resourceful, innovative, creative, and productive population we had before the advent of so much free stuff.

Yes, this is all true. BUT for anything that has 'criteria' the lines have to be drawn somewhere. And public assistance is just that public assistance - supposedly designed to provide a subsistance level of living until a person can get back on their feet, not to help someone'better themselves.' I mean, hey, it would help me better myself to get food stamps even though I make a good living. I would still be better off if someone dropped $300 - $400 into my coffers each month. The lines have to be drawn and respected. Public assistance is about survival and not about bettering one's self.

But the point made is that by presuming that the person needs public assistance to survive, the government too often takes on the role of provider and thereby discourages the person to make any effort to provide for himself/herself and thereby better himself or herself.

Which is why many local charities are far more likely to provide the necessities for survival, but also are in a much better position to encourage or insist that the person aided do something in return for that aid or otherwise help himself/herself. The homeless of yesteryear were the hoboes who would rarely take handouts without working for them, but who were willing to work for them.

The Federal government is ill equipped to require work in return for food or whatever. The local systems are well equipped to encourage that. The Federal government should not be providing any form of benevolence or charity or free stuff of any kind. If they leave the responsibility (as well as more resources) at the local level, there is far less likelihood that they will unintentionally make a person addicted to dependency rather than provide a path for a person to become productive.

True, and it's too bad the liberals don't like states having control. If any state were to try and enforce their own program to encourage people to lift themselves out of poverty, the state would probably be sued by Holder and he would make it about race somehow.

 

[gallantwarrior]

So the people who get welfare work for the government. Do tell what services they provide!

Many people who get food stamps work full time jobs. In fact US servicemen and their families have at times qualified for food stamps.

Which in itself speaks volumes about the politicians running this circus.

This is truly the most shameful thing this government is responsible for. That the military men and women who fight the wars the pols demand they fight, that those who sacrifice their lives, even unto death, in order to protect their fellow citizens, are not even paid enough of a wage to support and nurture their families without having to supplicate and beg the government they serve for enough public assistance to supplement that pittance they are paid.

 

[Clementine]

OK, so here's a question for you. I can't supply the link because it was a local story, not CNN, and I can't find it.

There is a local woman who does a lot of 'couponing', so much so that she has a room full of food and personal items stacked on shelves like a store. She said certain shelves she got it all for free and donates those items to people who need them. During the story she made a comment that she usually doesn't have to use all of her food stamps for the month, and sometimes doesn't use any, now that she is 'couponing.'

Should this woman still be getting food stamps? She is pulling in as much from her couponing as some people do from a job. That CAN be done. When my daughter was off after the baby was born she did a lot of that and you can combine store coupon, with a product company coupon for things already on sale, then coupons double from places that double them and almost everything you buy is free. If you also have a product code as wekk, you can actually get change back. She would take scripts to one pharmacy then have them transferred to the pharmacy that gives $25 for every script you transfer there and got about all their medicine for free. My daughter's husband has a good job, but they had been DINKS, so it was culture shock when the baby came along with all the concomitant expenses. She was and still is in a neighborhood coupon club, and an online one as well. But now she is working doesn't have the time she once did. She was never on food stamps.

Somehow it seem unfair for this local person who super coupons to be able to also draw food stamps. I saw how much money my daughter pulled in using this strategy. If this local woman on food stamps were pulling in the equivalent in money she would not get them. So what do you think?

The whole point of giving people money and food stamps is to help them till they are on their feet. If this woman doesn't need food stamps, then mission accomplished and she should not be on the doles.

I know some people get so much cereal and milk from various programs (WIC, etc) and are always giving it away because they'd have food rotting in their cupboards otherwise. When a person is given more than they need, they are taking too much and should cut back. There isn't enough oversight and I think it's common for people to make out pretty well. I know one family who was triple dipping welfare because they applied in 3 different states and they lived in the tri-state area. They had PO boxes. It seems so darn easy to scam and the states could care less what other states are doing, so they don't compare notes to see if the same person is taking welfare from more than one state. It's insane and practically encouraged. The government just keeps on giving.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Forcing other people to fund your pet causes isn't Christianity. It's thuggery.

One thing we know: your typical lib wouldn't donate a dime of his own money to help the poor.

They are only generous with other peoples money.

President Obama wants to raise his own taxes.

Mitt Romney wants to cut his own taxes, and pay for the revenue loss by cutting programs like food stamps and Medicaid.

Right, obama wants to raise his own taxes. That's why he used a tax dodge to shelter almost $100,000. Sure.
http://www.politisite.com/2012/04/1...-giving-their-daughters-nearly-50000-dollars/

 

[gallantwarrior]

Class warfare against the Poor.

How ironic, considering its source.

Class warfare against the working class. It goes both ways you know?

Pitting the working class against the poor is a well worn tactic of the money interests...

...who now bankroll the GOP, btw.

Kind of like pitting blacks against whites seems to be the up-and-coming well-worn tactic of obamabots?

 

[gallantwarrior]

OK, so here's a question for you. I can't supply the link because it was a local story, not CNN, and I can't find it.

There is a local woman who does a lot of 'couponing', so much so that she has a room full of food and personal items stacked on shelves like a store. She said certain shelves she got it all for free and donates those items to people who need them. During the story she made a comment that she usually doesn't have to use all of her food stamps for the month, and sometimes doesn't use any, now that she is 'couponing.'

Should this woman still be getting food stamps? She is pulling in as much from her couponing as some people do from a job. That CAN be done. When my daughter was off after the baby was born she did a lot of that and you can combine store coupon, with a product company coupon for things already on sale, then coupons double from places that double them and almost everything you buy is free. If you also have a product code as wekk, you can actually get change back. She would take scripts to one pharmacy then have them transferred to the pharmacy that gives $25 for every script you transfer there and got about all their medicine for free. My daughter's husband has a good job, but they had been DINKS, so it was culture shock when the baby came along with all the concomitant expenses. She was and still is in a neighborhood coupon club, and an online one as well. But now she is working doesn't have the time she once did. She was never on food stamps.

Somehow it seem unfair for this local person who super coupons to be able to also draw food stamps. I saw how much money my daughter pulled in using this strategy. If this local woman on food stamps were pulling in the equivalent in money she would not get them. So what do you think?

I think it isn't a bad idea to include this strategy in the training programs provided to food stamp recipients who will soon no longer be food stamp recipients. Food stamps are only a temporary social safety net and should only be provided until the coupon classes are completed.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Using your postings as the standard for intelligence

your opinion does not mean too much



Come on

you still think Papa Obama is doing a good job

Except when he's acted like a Republican, which is way too often, yes, Obama is doing a good job.

Oh

you mean the policies that actually work

that must just kill you as a Progressive

Don't worry the word out is that Papa Obama has a new campaign slogan

Here's a couple of obama's favorite recipes. You notice that they recommend using only lean dog meat...Michelle would approve.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnKSzAaaUes]CHINESE FAMILY TV-COOKING DOG MEAT - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BTJEHjXs7g]How to cook a dog - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Neotrotsky]

It really is a cultural difference
it does happen in a lot of places in Asia and even in Africa

which reminds me

Indeed,

Papa Obama the other "His Excellency President for Life"
or so the Left wishes

 

[gallantwarrior]

Maybe she can start a business of her own instead of scamming the system?

That or donate some food to needy people. Or even donate to the local foodbank, I'm sure they would like to have it.

But that wasn't my question. My question was: should she still be eligible for food stamps since she has such excess from couponing? If a person had the same amount of income on a W-2 they likely would not be eligible.

I have worked in the projects and there is definitely an underground economy with a lot of bartering going on.

I have no objection to a barter economy, as long as the stuff being bartered is stuff that the participants have made, grown, or otherwise produced on their own. I do have a problem when that being bartered has been taken from another person by government force.

 

[gallantwarrior]

[
I dropped my public sector union membership last April, tired of them taking my money and giving it to assholes for election/reelection without my consent.

Ah, so contrary to the idiots around here, you aren't forced to join unions.

People are not forced to join unions. But in 'union shops' the person who doesn't will be blackballed by his coworkers.

Better yet, if you refuse to sign the form allowing the union to automatically deduct their dues from your pay, they will force your employer to fire you. Initiation fees can be prorated, however.

 

[gallantwarrior]

She is definitely smart enough to be in business. I recall at the time of reading the article, has a huge following on FB and she gives 'lessons' in couponing. I really think she is scamming the system since her 'income' likely puts her out of being eligible for food stamps.

But then too, here we have the paradox. It is deemed compassionate to give food stamps to the poor so that they can buy more food.

But if the poor show any initiative to provide for themselves and improve their situation, they can be punished by losing the free stuff they were getting for being poor.

It seems to me that the free stuff creates dependency just because once we are getting free stuff, we resist going back to a system in which we have to pay for that stuff.

And the government not only is doling out lots of free stuff and thereby running the risk of creating dependency, but it exacerbates it by threatening to withhold the free stuff if somebody betters themselves.

Seems to me the most foolish of fools could see how the Federal government is gradually but surely creating a nation of dependents instead of the responsible, resourceful, innovative, creative, and productive population we had before the advent of so much free stuff.

And the paradox is thatit isn't and never will be free...someone somewhere expended thier sweat equity to create what is being redistributed...and got paid in some manner for thier time...

Therefore the axiom of 'There are no free lunches' holds true.

It's only "free" if you aren't paying for it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

But then too, here we have the paradox. It is deemed compassionate to give food stamps to the poor so that they can buy more food.

But if the poor show any initiative to provide for themselves and improve their situation, they can be punished by losing the free stuff they were getting for being poor.

It seems to me that the free stuff creates dependency just because once we are getting free stuff, we resist going back to a system in which we have to pay for that stuff.

And the government not only is doling out lots of free stuff and thereby running the risk of creating dependency, but it exacerbates it by threatening to withhold the free stuff if somebody betters themselves.

Seems to me the most foolish of fools could see how the Federal government is gradually but surely creating a nation of dependents instead of the responsible, resourceful, innovative, creative, and productive population we had before the advent of so much free stuff.

And the paradox is thatit isn't and never will be free...someone somewhere expended thier sweat equity to create what is being redistributed...and got paid in some manner for thier time...

Therefore the axiom of 'There are no free lunches' holds true.

Very true. And it is also true that the most ambitious and productive and self reliant eventually get tired of being the patsy for everybody else, the one who is supporting everybody else who aren't even doing their chores, much less contributing to the effort. And so it is human nature that the most ambitious and productive and self reliant will eventually stop being so ambitious and productive even to the point that they also have a hand out for the 'free stuff'.

And when there aren't enough productive people to provide the free stuff, it will be too late for those made dependent. The government will have control of everything and everybody and will tell everybody what they have to do to get the stuff that the government controls. And we will have lost the great nation that the Founders bought and gave us at great cost.

At some point, there will not be enough for everyone to be able to have their "stuff" and violence will ensue.

 

[Foxfyre]

I noticed these two articles are posted in the same message. Does this imply a relationship between Americans and animals?

It points out the juxtaposition of two government positions. One article tells us not to feed animals because it destroys their will and ability to feed themselves.
The other article implies that humans are incapable of feeding themselves and must be provided hand outs in order to eat.
Somehow, if there's any comparison, I would think it is that the government considers people to be somehow less than animals since they cannot be expected to fend for themselves without being fed.

Ancient peoples acquired beasts of burden (or food) by putting out food for wild creatures, most especially during the winter or other times that natural food supplies were hard to achieve. The wild horses, for instance, quickly found that it was much easier to accept the hand dug grasses than it was to paw through the ice and snow to find it themselves. And they gradually became accustomed to the presence of humans. And then to seek out the humans. And eventually it became fairly easy to encourage the horses to be corraled or otherwise captured and bent to the will of the humans. And the humans rarely released the creatures it captured and allow them to return to their own resources. They were too valuable to the humans as captives. The horses, in fact, eventually come to accept captivity as normal. Many would say they are better off as captives than they could ever be in the wild.

And humans seem to have little more common sense and resistance to similar enticements and bribes than do the wild horses. A little free stuff is initially gratefully accepted as a gift. And then a hope. And then an expectation. And eventually as the price we pay to be in the total custody of the government and bent to its will. And governments, once they achieve that kind of power and control, rarely relinquish it. Many would say the people are far better off as government dependents than they could ever be on their own.

 

[The T]

And the paradox is thatit isn't and never will be free...someone somewhere expended thier sweat equity to create what is being redistributed...and got paid in some manner for thier time...

Therefore the axiom of 'There are no free lunches' holds true.

Very true. And it is also true that the most ambitious and productive and self reliant eventually get tired of being the patsy for everybody else, the one who is supporting everybody else who aren't even doing their chores, much less contributing to the effort. And so it is human nature that the most ambitious and productive and self reliant will eventually stop being so ambitious and productive even to the point that they also have a hand out for the 'free stuff'.

And when there aren't enough productive people to provide the free stuff, it will be too late for those made dependent. The government will have control of everything and everybody and will tell everybody what they have to do to get the stuff that the government controls. And we will have lost the great nation that the Founders bought and gave us at great cost.

At some point, there will not be enough for everyone to be able to have their "stuff" and violence will ensue.

Complete breakdown of civilization as we know it...by design.

 

[The T]

But then too, here we have the paradox. It is deemed compassionate to give food stamps to the poor so that they can buy more food.

But if the poor show any initiative to provide for themselves and improve their situation, they can be punished by losing the free stuff they were getting for being poor.

It seems to me that the free stuff creates dependency just because once we are getting free stuff, we resist going back to a system in which we have to pay for that stuff.

And the government not only is doling out lots of free stuff and thereby running the risk of creating dependency, but it exacerbates it by threatening to withhold the free stuff if somebody betters themselves.

Seems to me the most foolish of fools could see how the Federal government is gradually but surely creating a nation of dependents instead of the responsible, resourceful, innovative, creative, and productive population we had before the advent of so much free stuff.

And the paradox is thatit isn't and never will be free...someone somewhere expended thier sweat equity to create what is being redistributed...and got paid in some manner for thier time...

Therefore the axiom of 'There are no free lunches' holds true.

It's only "free" if you aren't paying for it.

Precisely the point.

 

[Moonglow]

I checked with jesus, he said it's okay if you feed the people that are hungry

 

[The T]

I checked with jesus, he said it's okay if you feed the people that are hungry

Most of us do on our own...we don't need government doing it for us at the point of a gun.

It's not thier role, and never was.

 

[Moonglow]

I checked with jesus, he said it's okay if you feed the people that are hungry

Most of us do on our own...we don't need government doing it for us at the point of a gun.

It's not thier role, and never was.

what kind of gun was used on you?