GOP getting warmed up, cut a million from food stamp rolls. Getting ready or the election.

[OldLady]

We've had an explosion in disability claims because people are transitioning from receiving unemployment benefits to receiving disability benefits. We've created an underclass that exists primarily through government handouts and they will not go back to work as long as there is any means to remain supported by taxpayers. What was supposed to be a "safety net" has become a "hammock" and anyone who says that enough is enough will be accused of being heartless.

Part of the reason for that is the way the safety net is designed. A single mother with two young children receives welfare, food stamps, Medicaid for herself and her kids, heating oil assistance, low income housing. Why in hell would she agree to go to work at minimum wage, give half of it to a daycare provider, and lose the medical benefits for her family and all the rest? Not too many people are THAT stupid. People on welfare are not generally well educated and highly employable, just so you know.

Since it doesn't take "job skills" to have two kids...why would you expect a single mother to become well educated or be highly employable, OldLady? Unfortunately for decades we set up a system that incentivized single mother households in effect "rewarding" behavior that is harmful to both the mother and the children. As someone who was involved in Social Services I'm sure you know how hard it is for a single mother with two kids to get off of public assistance once she's on it.

The point I was making about not being well educated or highly employable is, they will only qualify for low paying jobs, not that they aren't intelligent. If we had federally funded (or state funded, I don't care) daycare programs with sliding fee scales, you would see an enormous # of people leave the welfare rolls. When my son was 4, I was lucky enough to have one nearby and it was the ONLY time I wasn't handing 1/3 of my take home pay to a daycare provider. The people who ran it told me, though, that if they'd known how much red tape and general horse hockey would be involved, they never would have done it. Probably why there are so few of those programs. The government can't manage any program without making it onerously difficult. That needs to change.

 

[Centinel]

Liberals provide food, education, shelter and medicine.

With money taken by force.

If I rob you and then use the stolen money to buy my friends some food, have I acted ethically?

 

[Moonglow]

Can't those welfare recipients go to other states such as New York or California? That would just mean more democratic voters for them.

What bastardness and baseness...

 

[Nosmo King]

Liberals provide food, education, shelter and medicine.

With money taken by force.

If I rob you and then use the stolen money to buy my friends some food, have I acted ethically?

The trouble with Conservatives is their perpensiy toward hyperbole. I reject the premise of your position due to hyperbole. Taxes are collected and spent by the state. My tax dollars are used to bail out investment banks and enhance the bottom lines of defense contractors. But I don't stoop to the intellectually dishonest position of hyperbole and claim my taxes were collected by force, or contend tax collection is the equivalent of armed robbery.

 

[Centinel]

Liberals provide food, education, shelter and medicine.

With money taken by force.

If I rob you and then use the stolen money to buy my friends some food, have I acted ethically?

The trouble with Conservatives is their perpensiy toward hyperbole. I reject the premise of your position due to hyperbole. Taxes are collected and spent by the state. My tax dollars are used to bail out investment banks and enhance the bottom lines of defense contractors. But I don't stoop to the intellectually dishonest position of hyperbole and claim my taxes were collected by force, or contend tax collection is the equivalent of armed robbery.

I can't speak for Conservatives, but you don't think taxes are collected by force? Do you know what happens to people who don't pay their taxes?

 

[Kondor3]

The fed gov should cut food stamps. There is no constitutional authorization for them.

Isn't a Standing Army ALSO lacking Constitutional authorization?

 

[Kondor3]

Personally, I have no problem with folks receiving Food Stamp -style benefits.

But, as Sarah Palin said recently, I object to the Safety Net being turned into a Hammock.

 

[Centinel]

The fed gov should cut food stamps. There is no constitutional authorization for them.

Isn't a Standing Army ALSO lacking Constitutional authorization?

Yes! It IS also lacking constitutional authorization.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

 

[paulitician]

Inevitable. This current Welfare/Warfare State can't be sustained. Something's gotta give. Change is gonna happen whether we like it or not.

 

[Kondor3]

The fed gov should cut food stamps. There is no constitutional authorization for them.

Isn't a Standing Army ALSO lacking Constitutional authorization?

Yes! It IS also lacking constitutional authorization.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

And yet, we have what is tantamount to a Standing Army, don't we?

 

[Kondor3]

Can't those welfare recipients go to other states such as New York or California? That would just mean more democratic voters for them.

What bastardness and baseness...

Yeah, maybe, but there IS a certain attraction to the idea of flushing 'em out of Middle America and parking 'em with the LibPro fruit-loops who created them in the first place.

 

[Oldstyle]

Not that I don't agree with the "idea" that you are putting forward, but please - where the hell in the Constitution does it state that?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Feeding the hungry citizens insures domestic tranquility, promotes their general welfare and helps them secure the blessings of liberty.

With all due respect, Nosmo...it's been over fifty years since LBJ began the War on Poverty in this country by introducing a whole series of entitlement programs. Has poverty decreased? Are we more tranquil? More secure? Is our general welfare better?

Let's be honest with ourselves and ask if what we've done to "help" hasn't in fact "hindered"!

Perhaps you never encountered real poverty. Real poverty as is existed before the Great Society programs. Real poverty that reduced lifespans, retarded childhood development, repressed any chance at what we enjoy as civilized life today.

Only someone without real life perspective could proffer an argument that smile government largess is a hinderence to the pursuit of happiness.

Once again, Nosmo...have those Great Society programs helped the poor in the inner cities or hurt them? We've got 50 years of those programs and we still have rampant poverty. So have your entitlements REALLY brought happiness to those who exist under them? I would argue that "real life" has taught me that having a job that fulfills you as a person is what brings happiness to people.

Having a job is the gold standard. If the policies of providing food and shelter and medicine to the poor have 'hindered' them, what have the policies of reducing worker's rights, reducing workplace safety regulations, off shoring jobs, reducing wages and not providing equal pay for equal work done to the poor?

Liberals provide food, education, shelter and medicine. Conservatives provide an easier way for employers to exploit workers.

Who's hindering the poor?

Not that I don't agree with the "idea" that you are putting forward, but please - where the hell in the Constitution does it state that?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Feeding the hungry citizens insures domestic tranquility, promotes their general welfare and helps them secure the blessings of liberty.

With all due respect, Nosmo...it's been over fifty years since LBJ began the War on Poverty in this country by introducing a whole series of entitlement programs. Has poverty decreased? Are we more tranquil? More secure? Is our general welfare better?

Let's be honest with ourselves and ask if what we've done to "help" hasn't in fact "hindered"!

Perhaps you never encountered real poverty. Real poverty as is existed before the Great Society programs. Real poverty that reduced lifespans, retarded childhood development, repressed any chance at what we enjoy as civilized life today.

Only someone without real life perspective could proffer an argument that smile government largess is a hinderence to the pursuit of happiness.

Once again, Nosmo...have those Great Society programs helped the poor in the inner cities or hurt them? We've got 50 years of those programs and we still have rampant poverty. So have your entitlements REALLY brought happiness to those who exist under them? I would argue that "real life" has taught me that having a job that fulfills you as a person is what brings happiness to people.

Having a job is the gold standard. If the policies of providing food and shelter and medicine to the poor have 'hindered' them, what have the policies of reducing worker's rights, reducing workplace safety regulations, off shoring jobs, reducing wages and not providing equal pay for equal work done to the poor?

Liberals provide food, education, shelter and medicine. Conservatives provide an easier way for employers to exploit workers.

Who's hindering the poor?

Who really IS hindering the poor? Great question! Now do you really want to answer it or do you want to demagogue? Let's address this whole "exploitation" thing you seem to think takes place! I was an employer. I didn't "exploit" my workers because good workers are extremely hard to find and to keep. Exploiting them makes them leave. I rewarded my good employees because they made me money. It's not something I need a governmental agency looking over my shoulders to do...it's something I did because it makes good business sense! I only wish my competitors WOULD have exploited their workers because there would be a line of good people outside of my doors looking to work for me rather than someone else!

Liberals do "provide" things. Unfortunately someone has to pay for what's being provided and that's where you start having problems with this whole concept of "providing" for people! Right now, Bernie Sanders is running for President on a platform of "providing" all kinds of "free" stuff to all kinds of people! It's an enticing idea...this whole notion of taking care of people! I mean who can argue with the idea that people who through no fault of their own have fallen upon hard times might need a helping hand? To do so WOULD be heartless and the American public is without peer throughout the world at donating to help those who are in need!

But here's the rub...someone DOES have to pick up the tab for all these entitlements! Bernie would like you to believe that he's going to pay for what he's promising by taxing rich people. If you have rudimentary math skills though you can easily see that even taking ALL the money that rich people earn will not come close to paying for these programs. What he's proposing could only be paid for by taxing the Middle Class...and taxing them heavily! So be honest...if you want that kind of societal "safety net" where we provide cradle to grave security no matter how bad your life choices are...tell the people who are going to be on the hook for paying for all of this what it is that they're going to owe!

 

[Centinel]

The fed gov should cut food stamps. There is no constitutional authorization for them.

Isn't a Standing Army ALSO lacking Constitutional authorization?

Yes! It IS also lacking constitutional authorization.

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

And yet, we have what is tantamount to a Standing Army, don't we?

Yes, we have a standing army. Yet another violation of the constitution. Surprise surprise.

 

[Nosmo King]

Liberals provide food, education, shelter and medicine.

With money taken by force.

If I rob you and then use the stolen money to buy my friends some food, have I acted ethically?

The trouble with Conservatives is their perpensiy toward hyperbole. I reject the premise of your position due to hyperbole. Taxes are collected and spent by the state. My tax dollars are used to bail out investment banks and enhance the bottom lines of defense contractors. But I don't stoop to the intellectually dishonest position of hyperbole and claim my taxes were collected by force, or contend tax collection is the equivalent of armed robbery.

I can't speak for Conservatives, but you don't think taxes are collected by force? Do you know what happens to people who don't pay their taxes?

You think that your tax dollars are forcibly obtained because they help put a forkful of food in nth o a hungry American's mouth. I think my tax dollars are lawfully I brained the vent though they are deposited a not the account of a multi-billion dollar closed nvestment bank. I'm upset by that, you're resentful of using taxes to help the helpless.

Which is more noble?

 

[Centinel]

Liberals provide food, education, shelter and medicine.

With money taken by force.

If I rob you and then use the stolen money to buy my friends some food, have I acted ethically?

The trouble with Conservatives is their perpensiy toward hyperbole. I reject the premise of your position due to hyperbole. Taxes are collected and spent by the state. My tax dollars are used to bail out investment banks and enhance the bottom lines of defense contractors. But I don't stoop to the intellectually dishonest position of hyperbole and claim my taxes were collected by force, or contend tax collection is the equivalent of armed robbery.

I can't speak for Conservatives, but you don't think taxes are collected by force? Do you know what happens to people who don't pay their taxes?

You think that your tax dollars are forcibly obtained because they help put a forkful of food in nth o a hungry American's mouth. I think my tax dollars are lawfully I brained the vent though they are deposited a not the account of a multi-billion dollar closed nvestment bank. I'm upset by that, you're resentful of using taxes to help the helpless.

Which is more noble?

If I forcibly take money from you and use it to pay for something I think is noble, I still have robbed you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not that I don't agree with the "idea" that you are putting forward, but please - where the hell in the Constitution does it state that?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Feeding the hungry citizens insures domestic tranquility, promotes their general welfare and helps them secure the blessings of liberty.

With all due respect, Nosmo...it's been over fifty years since LBJ began the War on Poverty in this country by introducing a whole series of entitlement programs. Has poverty decreased? Are we more tranquil? More secure? Is our general welfare better?

Let's be honest with ourselves and ask if what we've done to "help" hasn't in fact "hindered"!

Perhaps you never encountered real poverty. Real poverty as is existed before the Great Society programs. Real poverty that reduced lifespans, retarded childhood development, repressed any chance at what we enjoy as civilized life today.

Only someone without real life perspective could proffer an argument that smile government largess is a hinderence to the pursuit of happiness.

Once again, Nosmo...have those Great Society programs helped the poor in the inner cities or hurt them? We've got 50 years of those programs and we still have rampant poverty. So have your entitlements REALLY brought happiness to those who exist under them? I would argue that "real life" has taught me that having a job that fulfills you as a person is what brings happiness to people.

Having a job is the gold standard. If the policies of providing food and shelter and medicine to the poor have 'hindered' them, what have the policies of reducing worker's rights, reducing workplace safety regulations, off shoring jobs, reducing wages and not providing equal pay for equal work done to the poor?

Liberals provide food, education, shelter and medicine. Conservatives provide an easier way for employers to exploit workers.

Who's hindering the poor?

Liberals don't provide anything except a way to legally take money from working people in order to buy votes of others.

As far as liberals providing, liberals the the cheapest of the two parties when it comes to charity. Even Biden donated less than $1,000 in a years time when he first took office. Gore had a similar record.

 

[leftwinger]

to start out at a minimum wage job and gradually learn the job skills to get paid more

Can't. Illegals took all those jobs.

 

[leftwinger]

How much cut are they discussing here $6-$7Bil? Obama spends more than that on Golf, parties, Fundraisers, Vacations, trips etc. Not to mention the rest of goons going off to "GW conference" or?

I say cut all that out first. Cut it to bare minimum. If a plane leaves with freeloading GOVT employee they better be going somewhere important using Coach ticket. Stop the bleeding!

 

[Nosmo King]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Feeding the hungry citizens insures domestic tranquility, promotes their general welfare and helps them secure the blessings of liberty.

With all due respect, Nosmo...it's been over fifty years since LBJ began the War on Poverty in this country by introducing a whole series of entitlement programs. Has poverty decreased? Are we more tranquil? More secure? Is our general welfare better?

Let's be honest with ourselves and ask if what we've done to "help" hasn't in fact "hindered"!

Perhaps you never encountered real poverty. Real poverty as is existed before the Great Society programs. Real poverty that reduced lifespans, retarded childhood development, repressed any chance at what we enjoy as civilized life today.

Only someone without real life perspective could proffer an argument that smile government largess is a hinderence to the pursuit of happiness.

Once again, Nosmo...have those Great Society programs helped the poor in the inner cities or hurt them? We've got 50 years of those programs and we still have rampant poverty. So have your entitlements REALLY brought happiness to those who exist under them? I would argue that "real life" has taught me that having a job that fulfills you as a person is what brings happiness to people.

Having a job is the gold standard. If the policies of providing food and shelter and medicine to the poor have 'hindered' them, what have the policies of reducing worker's rights, reducing workplace safety regulations, off shoring jobs, reducing wages and not providing equal pay for equal work done to the poor?

Liberals provide food, education, shelter and medicine. Conservatives provide an easier way for employers to exploit workers.

Who's hindering the poor?

Liberals don't provide anything except a way to legally take money from working people in order to buy votes of others.

As far as liberals providing, liberals the the cheapest of the two parties when it comes to charity. Even Biden donated less than $1,000 in a years time when he first took office. Gore had a similar record.

Do you really believe that votes are purchased through largess? Voter turnout is considered massive if 40% turn out on Election Day. Your's is a particuarly cynical view. And when comparing two entities, the word is "cheaper" not "cheapest".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

With all due respect, Nosmo...it's been over fifty years since LBJ began the War on Poverty in this country by introducing a whole series of entitlement programs. Has poverty decreased? Are we more tranquil? More secure? Is our general welfare better?

Let's be honest with ourselves and ask if what we've done to "help" hasn't in fact "hindered"!

Perhaps you never encountered real poverty. Real poverty as is existed before the Great Society programs. Real poverty that reduced lifespans, retarded childhood development, repressed any chance at what we enjoy as civilized life today.

Only someone without real life perspective could proffer an argument that smile government largess is a hinderence to the pursuit of happiness.

Once again, Nosmo...have those Great Society programs helped the poor in the inner cities or hurt them? We've got 50 years of those programs and we still have rampant poverty. So have your entitlements REALLY brought happiness to those who exist under them? I would argue that "real life" has taught me that having a job that fulfills you as a person is what brings happiness to people.

Having a job is the gold standard. If the policies of providing food and shelter and medicine to the poor have 'hindered' them, what have the policies of reducing worker's rights, reducing workplace safety regulations, off shoring jobs, reducing wages and not providing equal pay for equal work done to the poor?

Liberals provide food, education, shelter and medicine. Conservatives provide an easier way for employers to exploit workers.

Who's hindering the poor?

Liberals don't provide anything except a way to legally take money from working people in order to buy votes of others.

As far as liberals providing, liberals the the cheapest of the two parties when it comes to charity. Even Biden donated less than $1,000 in a years time when he first took office. Gore had a similar record.

Do you really believe that votes are purchased through largess? Voter turnout is considered massive if 40% turn out on Election Day. Your's is a particuarly cynical view. And when comparing two entities, the word is "cheaper" not "cheapest".

The word I used is just fine.

Yes, the Democrats buy votes by pandering and creating more government dependents and victims. It's an accomplishment by DumBama and the Democrats. Unless you really believe that we have more government dependents by accident. Unless you really believe that a bunch of politicians give a crap whether you have health insurance or not.