Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood

[Cecilie1200]

By the way, shitforbrains, SNAP doesn't cover buying a burger, fries, and shake. It covers grocery stores, not restaurants. Dimwit.

It covers hamburger, including ready made frozen burgers, cheese, frozen pre cut fries, cooking oil, ice cream and milk. The point was that for the cost of the unhealthy burger meal a dozen or more alternative healthy meals could be obtained.

See, you don't want them to have hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or - apparently - cooking oil. I'm betting Kosher thinks the program should be limited to things like hamburger and milk. (How they're supposed to prepare food without cooking oil has me mystified.)

I become more and more curious as to what you think these "alternative healthy meals" that are cheaper than hamburger are, and how they don't include milk.

 

[Conservative65]

Since so many of the recipients of our tax funded food program that feeds them are children, ya, someone has to show them an educated way to eat and since the funds involved are tax payer funds, it is appropriate to have some kinds of watch dog control. Nobody is telling people how to live by limiting how they spend donated food assistance funds. They have the ability and freedom to purchase whatever they want with their own money. It is not an attempt to control how people live by insisting that the five dollars we give them be spent on oatmeal instead of bacon. Only a very stupid person would not understand that science has proven beyond any doubt that eating cholesterol lowering oatmeal packed with vitamins is healthier than eating cholesterol causing processed bacon packed with chemicals and blood pressure increasing salt. To top it off, the five dollars worth of bacon will last a very short time and do little to prevent hunger while the five dollars worth of oatmeal will provide many days worth of hunger relief.

koshergrl See? This right here is what you're opening the door to. Just THINK how much money can be wasted by complicating the system with fools like this attempting to use it to impose their personal preferences onto others' lives.

If I needed no other argument against unintentional complicity with leftists, Camp here would suffice.

It isn't complicated at all. There has been a program operating that restricts and designates foods for decades and it works just fine. It is called WIC It is a program for expectant mothers, infants and children that does exactly as I have been suggesting to be implemented through the entire food assistance program. It reduces cost and insures expectant mothers, infants and children are healthier. The health benefits reduce medical cost. The foods are designated by nutrition and health experts and the producers pay for and apply the labels. No one is forcing anyone into anything. The recipients are not forced into accepting free food. If people do not want to accept free food that the government has deemed as healthy and appropriately priced, they don't have to accept the free food. What you suggest is that when we hand a bowl of vegetable soup, a fresh garden salad and apple juice to a person they can refuse it and demand a double bacon cheeseburger and fries with a milk shake. What I suggest is if they don't want the soup, salad and juice they can go get the burger, fries and shake with their own money, not mine.

It gives me the willies to hear any leftist ever say "It's not complicated" about any proposal they make, because it always means a coming shitstorm of red tape and expense.

WIC is an utterly different sort of program from Food Stamps, funded differently and administered differently and with different scale, targets, and requirements. The idea of trying to apply the workings of WIC to the massive SNAP program, particularly to accommodate the subsequent wrangling over what constitutes "proper" food from all sides, just makes me queasy.

By the way, if you really think WIC is radically revising people's eating habits and overall nutrition to the point of significantly altering medical costs, you're a bigger moron than I credited.

What I actually suggest is that we stop focusing on "how can we tinker with ever more minute details of how other people live?" and address the REAL problems instead.

By the way, shitforbrains, SNAP doesn't cover buying a burger, fries, and shake. It covers grocery stores, not restaurants. Dimwit.

Sad thing is SNAP can be used in a convenient store where prices are much higher and the food is more unhealthy. Why should it matter to leeches. It's not their money and when they have health problems related to eating that crap, someone else will be forced to fund their medical care.

It is not the fault of the recipients. Blame the politicia

By the way, if you really think WIC is radically revising people's eating habits and overall nutrition to the point of significantly altering medical costs, you're a bigger moron than I credited.

.

It is just one of those pesky facts you do not want to acknowledge. Babies are born healthier to women on WIC, fewer babies die in fancy and medical cost are drastically reduced for infants and children on the WIC program.

Why would healthy babies matter to democrats.....they fund planned parent hood....isn't that their solution to under nourished babies.....?

Why do you enjoy sounding so stupid and ridiculous?

We can't dare blame those who USE their food stamp money somewhere it costs more. How dare we expect those who have handed to them what they should be doing for themselves to act responsibly. Why should we. We don't expect them to be responsible enough to provide it to themselves.

 

[Conservative65]

By the way, shitforbrains, SNAP doesn't cover buying a burger, fries, and shake. It covers grocery stores, not restaurants. Dimwit.

It covers hamburger, including ready made frozen burgers, cheese, frozen pre cut fries, cooking oil, ice cream and milk. The point was that for the cost of the unhealthy burger meal a dozen or more alternative healthy meals could be obtained.

See, you don't want them to have hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or - apparently - cooking oil. I'm betting Kosher thinks the program should be limited to things like hamburger and milk. (How they're supposed to prepare food without cooking oil has me mystified.)

I become more and more curious as to what you think these "alternative healthy meals" that are cheaper than hamburger are, and how they don't include milk.

So you can't cook without cooking oil and can't cook healthy without milk?

 

[Camp]

By the way, shitforbrains, SNAP doesn't cover buying a burger, fries, and shake. It covers grocery stores, not restaurants. Dimwit.

It covers hamburger, including ready made frozen burgers, cheese, frozen pre cut fries, cooking oil, ice cream and milk. The point was that for the cost of the unhealthy burger meal a dozen or more alternative healthy meals could be obtained.

See, you don't want them to have hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or - apparently - cooking oil. I'm betting Kosher thinks the program should be limited to things like hamburger and milk. (How they're supposed to prepare food without cooking oil has me mystified.)

I become more and more curious as to what you think these "alternative healthy meals" that are cheaper than hamburger are, and how they don't include milk.

I never said milk should not be allowed. None of this will happen and isn't even proposed. The thread title is another misdirected and misinformed title. The Republicans in Missouri never proposed the legislation being suggested. It was proposed by one Republican and rejected by all the other Republicans. It was never a bill or an amendment for a bill or a topic of a committee hearing. Just one idea announced by one Republican. The Republicans will not take on the grocery industry, food producing industry and agriculture industry. The system will be abused and wasteful because big business likes it that way and both Republicans and Democrats will march to the beat of the drums the industries beat.

 

[Camp]

koshergrl See? This right here is what you're opening the door to. Just THINK how much money can be wasted by complicating the system with fools like this attempting to use it to impose their personal preferences onto others' lives.

If I needed no other argument against unintentional complicity with leftists, Camp here would suffice.

It isn't complicated at all. There has been a program operating that restricts and designates foods for decades and it works just fine. It is called WIC It is a program for expectant mothers, infants and children that does exactly as I have been suggesting to be implemented through the entire food assistance program. It reduces cost and insures expectant mothers, infants and children are healthier. The health benefits reduce medical cost. The foods are designated by nutrition and health experts and the producers pay for and apply the labels. No one is forcing anyone into anything. The recipients are not forced into accepting free food. If people do not want to accept free food that the government has deemed as healthy and appropriately priced, they don't have to accept the free food. What you suggest is that when we hand a bowl of vegetable soup, a fresh garden salad and apple juice to a person they can refuse it and demand a double bacon cheeseburger and fries with a milk shake. What I suggest is if they don't want the soup, salad and juice they can go get the burger, fries and shake with their own money, not mine.

It gives me the willies to hear any leftist ever say "It's not complicated" about any proposal they make, because it always means a coming shitstorm of red tape and expense.

WIC is an utterly different sort of program from Food Stamps, funded differently and administered differently and with different scale, targets, and requirements. The idea of trying to apply the workings of WIC to the massive SNAP program, particularly to accommodate the subsequent wrangling over what constitutes "proper" food from all sides, just makes me queasy.

By the way, if you really think WIC is radically revising people's eating habits and overall nutrition to the point of significantly altering medical costs, you're a bigger moron than I credited.

What I actually suggest is that we stop focusing on "how can we tinker with ever more minute details of how other people live?" and address the REAL problems instead.

By the way, shitforbrains, SNAP doesn't cover buying a burger, fries, and shake. It covers grocery stores, not restaurants. Dimwit.

Sad thing is SNAP can be used in a convenient store where prices are much higher and the food is more unhealthy. Why should it matter to leeches. It's not their money and when they have health problems related to eating that crap, someone else will be forced to fund their medical care.

It is not the fault of the recipients. Blame the politicia

By the way, if you really think WIC is radically revising people's eating habits and overall nutrition to the point of significantly altering medical costs, you're a bigger moron than I credited.

.

It is just one of those pesky facts you do not want to acknowledge. Babies are born healthier to women on WIC, fewer babies die in fancy and medical cost are drastically reduced for infants and children on the WIC program.

Why would healthy babies matter to democrats.....they fund planned parent hood....isn't that their solution to under nourished babies.....?

Why do you enjoy sounding so stupid and ridiculous?

We can't dare blame those who USE their food stamp money somewhere it costs more. How dare we expect those who have handed to them what they should be doing for themselves to act responsibly. Why should we. We don't expect them to be responsible enough to provide it to themselves.

80% of the recipients are infants, children, senior citizens and disabled.

 

[Conservative65]

It isn't complicated at all. There has been a program operating that restricts and designates foods for decades and it works just fine. It is called WIC It is a program for expectant mothers, infants and children that does exactly as I have been suggesting to be implemented through the entire food assistance program. It reduces cost and insures expectant mothers, infants and children are healthier. The health benefits reduce medical cost. The foods are designated by nutrition and health experts and the producers pay for and apply the labels. No one is forcing anyone into anything. The recipients are not forced into accepting free food. If people do not want to accept free food that the government has deemed as healthy and appropriately priced, they don't have to accept the free food. What you suggest is that when we hand a bowl of vegetable soup, a fresh garden salad and apple juice to a person they can refuse it and demand a double bacon cheeseburger and fries with a milk shake. What I suggest is if they don't want the soup, salad and juice they can go get the burger, fries and shake with their own money, not mine.

It gives me the willies to hear any leftist ever say "It's not complicated" about any proposal they make, because it always means a coming shitstorm of red tape and expense.

WIC is an utterly different sort of program from Food Stamps, funded differently and administered differently and with different scale, targets, and requirements. The idea of trying to apply the workings of WIC to the massive SNAP program, particularly to accommodate the subsequent wrangling over what constitutes "proper" food from all sides, just makes me queasy.

By the way, if you really think WIC is radically revising people's eating habits and overall nutrition to the point of significantly altering medical costs, you're a bigger moron than I credited.

What I actually suggest is that we stop focusing on "how can we tinker with ever more minute details of how other people live?" and address the REAL problems instead.

By the way, shitforbrains, SNAP doesn't cover buying a burger, fries, and shake. It covers grocery stores, not restaurants. Dimwit.

Sad thing is SNAP can be used in a convenient store where prices are much higher and the food is more unhealthy. Why should it matter to leeches. It's not their money and when they have health problems related to eating that crap, someone else will be forced to fund their medical care.

It is not the fault of the recipients. Blame the politicia

By the way, if you really think WIC is radically revising people's eating habits and overall nutrition to the point of significantly altering medical costs, you're a bigger moron than I credited.

.

It is just one of those pesky facts you do not want to acknowledge. Babies are born healthier to women on WIC, fewer babies die in fancy and medical cost are drastically reduced for infants and children on the WIC program.

Why would healthy babies matter to democrats.....they fund planned parent hood....isn't that their solution to under nourished babies.....?

Why do you enjoy sounding so stupid and ridiculous?

We can't dare blame those who USE their food stamp money somewhere it costs more. How dare we expect those who have handed to them what they should be doing for themselves to act responsibly. Why should we. We don't expect them to be responsible enough to provide it to themselves.

80% of the recipients are infants, children, senior citizens and disabled.

That has nothing to do with using something someone else was forced to give you responsibly and efficiently. It's the least they can do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

She said we should limit them. I said we did once, under Clinton. I was referring to "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996." Go ahead and Google it yourself, ya jerk.

So there was an act that place a work or school requirement on AFDC and actually INCREASED benefits, and which move general relief recipients to SSI, nearly tripling what the received.

So again, WHAT was limited?

 

[Cecilie1200]

By the way, shitforbrains, SNAP doesn't cover buying a burger, fries, and shake. It covers grocery stores, not restaurants. Dimwit.

It covers hamburger, including ready made frozen burgers, cheese, frozen pre cut fries, cooking oil, ice cream and milk. The point was that for the cost of the unhealthy burger meal a dozen or more alternative healthy meals could be obtained.

See, you don't want them to have hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or - apparently - cooking oil. I'm betting Kosher thinks the program should be limited to things like hamburger and milk. (How they're supposed to prepare food without cooking oil has me mystified.)

I become more and more curious as to what you think these "alternative healthy meals" that are cheaper than hamburger are, and how they don't include milk.

So you can't cook without cooking oil and can't cook healthy without milk?

Even WIC thinks milk is part of a healthy child's diet. And no, removing any sort of cooking oil from the recipe severely limits what one can prepare, as any competent cook could tell you.

Keep talking, though, Camp, because you're making my point for me. You don't think Food Stamps should cover hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or cooking oil, apparently. What DO you think it should provide? What constitutes the healthy diet you would like to mandate for the millions of people receiving SNAP?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why would healthy babies matter to democrats.....they fund planned parent hood....isn't that their solution to under nourished babies.....?

An IQ of 85 produces a high functioning worker who does not question or seek to gain control. Red meats and fish stimulate brain development, red meat particularly stimulates higher brain functions. Feeding a child sugars and cereals will ensure that brain development remains low and that an obedient worker is produced. I believe Camp and Puddly Pillowbite have stated that they eat no meat, so the results are on display. Obviously the party will offer a well balanced and protein rich diet to those who are groomed to rule; but for the Proles, a diet of cereal and sugar will create the type of underclass democrats desire.

 

[Camp]

By the way, shitforbrains, SNAP doesn't cover buying a burger, fries, and shake. It covers grocery stores, not restaurants. Dimwit.

It covers hamburger, including ready made frozen burgers, cheese, frozen pre cut fries, cooking oil, ice cream and milk. The point was that for the cost of the unhealthy burger meal a dozen or more alternative healthy meals could be obtained.

See, you don't want them to have hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or - apparently - cooking oil. I'm betting Kosher thinks the program should be limited to things like hamburger and milk. (How they're supposed to prepare food without cooking oil has me mystified.)

I become more and more curious as to what you think these "alternative healthy meals" that are cheaper than hamburger are, and how they don't include milk.

So you can't cook without cooking oil and can't cook healthy without milk?

Even WIC thinks milk is part of a healthy child's diet. And no, removing any sort of cooking oil from the recipe severely limits what one can prepare, as any competent cook could tell you.

Keep talking, though, Camp, because you're making my point for me. You don't think Food Stamps should cover hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or cooking oil, apparently. What DO you think it should provide? What constitutes the healthy diet you would like to mandate for the millions of people receiving SNAP?

You are misinterpreting my post. Not sure if you are doing it because you are dishonest or stupid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

By the way, shitforbrains, SNAP doesn't cover buying a burger, fries, and shake. It covers grocery stores, not restaurants. Dimwit.

It covers hamburger, including ready made frozen burgers, cheese, frozen pre cut fries, cooking oil, ice cream and milk. The point was that for the cost of the unhealthy burger meal a dozen or more alternative healthy meals could be obtained.

See, you don't want them to have hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or - apparently - cooking oil. I'm betting Kosher thinks the program should be limited to things like hamburger and milk. (How they're supposed to prepare food without cooking oil has me mystified.)

I become more and more curious as to what you think these "alternative healthy meals" that are cheaper than hamburger are, and how they don't include milk.

So you can't cook without cooking oil and can't cook healthy without milk?

Even WIC thinks milk is part of a healthy child's diet. And no, removing any sort of cooking oil from the recipe severely limits what one can prepare, as any competent cook could tell you.

Keep talking, though, Camp, because you're making my point for me. You don't think Food Stamps should cover hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or cooking oil, apparently. What DO you think it should provide? What constitutes the healthy diet you would like to mandate for the millions of people receiving SNAP?

You are misinterpreting my post. Not sure if you are doing it because you are dishonest or stupid.

No, you just really want to walk it back because you ran your gums without thinking and now you're embarrassed.

Let's cut to the chase.

What do you think should consistute the acceptable, healthy diet that Food Stamps should cover? Give me the specifics of what you would limit it to and why.

And I very much invite everyone else who advocates playing Food Police, for whatever reason, to answer the same question.

 

[Conservative65]

It covers hamburger, including ready made frozen burgers, cheese, frozen pre cut fries, cooking oil, ice cream and milk. The point was that for the cost of the unhealthy burger meal a dozen or more alternative healthy meals could be obtained.

See, you don't want them to have hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or - apparently - cooking oil. I'm betting Kosher thinks the program should be limited to things like hamburger and milk. (How they're supposed to prepare food without cooking oil has me mystified.)

I become more and more curious as to what you think these "alternative healthy meals" that are cheaper than hamburger are, and how they don't include milk.

So you can't cook without cooking oil and can't cook healthy without milk?

Even WIC thinks milk is part of a healthy child's diet. And no, removing any sort of cooking oil from the recipe severely limits what one can prepare, as any competent cook could tell you.

Keep talking, though, Camp, because you're making my point for me. You don't think Food Stamps should cover hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or cooking oil, apparently. What DO you think it should provide? What constitutes the healthy diet you would like to mandate for the millions of people receiving SNAP?

You are misinterpreting my post. Not sure if you are doing it because you are dishonest or stupid.

No, you just really want to walk it back because you ran your gums without thinking and now you're embarrassed.

Let's cut to the chase.

What do you think should consistute the acceptable, healthy diet that Food Stamps should cover? Give me the specifics of what you would limit it to and why.

And I very much invite everyone else who advocates playing Food Police, for whatever reason, to answer the same question.

Food Stamps should cover what those of us forced to fund them say they should cover. I don't know what that list is but I've expressed why.

 

[hazlnut]

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?

This "luxury item" bullshit has been debunked -- nevertheless, Tea Brains are going to run with it.

Dopes.

 

[jknowgood]

You can when you're responsible enough to support yourself. If you expect tax payers to support you then you lose certain choices.

Is it reading comprehension or ignorant dick attitude that makes you incapable of having a conversation without making it about the personal? No wonder you're eating your liver out over what you imagine other people are doing. Get a grip.

It's my ******* money you dumbass. If you want the best of foods get a job and support yourself. If not be grateful to the tax payers that are supporting your dumbass.

Ignorant dick attitude it is. Call me when you grow up into a real conservative instead of stumbling by accident into a position and thinking it makes you mature.

So it's ignorant to expect people who otherwise wouldn't have what taxpayers are forced to provide them to buy it themselves if they want better or say thank you for those of us doing for them what they should be doing for themselves?

I'm not entirely sure I even understood what your question was.

Is it ignorant to expect people on welfare to say thank you or be grateful? Humans being what they are, I'd have to say yes, expecting gratitude is . . . naive.

Expecting a free ride is slack. Get a job.

 

[Conservative65]

Is it reading comprehension or ignorant dick attitude that makes you incapable of having a conversation without making it about the personal? No wonder you're eating your liver out over what you imagine other people are doing. Get a grip.

It's my ******* money you dumbass. If you want the best of foods get a job and support yourself. If not be grateful to the tax payers that are supporting your dumbass.

Ignorant dick attitude it is. Call me when you grow up into a real conservative instead of stumbling by accident into a position and thinking it makes you mature.

So it's ignorant to expect people who otherwise wouldn't have what taxpayers are forced to provide them to buy it themselves if they want better or say thank you for those of us doing for them what they should be doing for themselves?

I'm not entirely sure I even understood what your question was.

Is it ignorant to expect people on welfare to say thank you or be grateful? Humans being what they are, I'd have to say yes, expecting gratitude is . . . naive.

Expecting a free ride is slack. Get a job.

Not only do we not get gratitude, we get demands from leeches about the stuff they get for nothing not being enough. It's one thing to rely on someone else for what should be provided by that person to that person, it's another when those getting it whine about the amount.

 

[Cecilie1200]

See, you don't want them to have hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or - apparently - cooking oil. I'm betting Kosher thinks the program should be limited to things like hamburger and milk. (How they're supposed to prepare food without cooking oil has me mystified.)

I become more and more curious as to what you think these "alternative healthy meals" that are cheaper than hamburger are, and how they don't include milk.

So you can't cook without cooking oil and can't cook healthy without milk?

Even WIC thinks milk is part of a healthy child's diet. And no, removing any sort of cooking oil from the recipe severely limits what one can prepare, as any competent cook could tell you.

Keep talking, though, Camp, because you're making my point for me. You don't think Food Stamps should cover hamburger, frozen potatoes, milk, or cooking oil, apparently. What DO you think it should provide? What constitutes the healthy diet you would like to mandate for the millions of people receiving SNAP?

You are misinterpreting my post. Not sure if you are doing it because you are dishonest or stupid.

No, you just really want to walk it back because you ran your gums without thinking and now you're embarrassed.

Let's cut to the chase.

What do you think should consistute the acceptable, healthy diet that Food Stamps should cover? Give me the specifics of what you would limit it to and why.

And I very much invite everyone else who advocates playing Food Police, for whatever reason, to answer the same question.

Food Stamps should cover what those of us forced to fund them say they should cover. I don't know what that list is but I've expressed why.

So you just have a vague idea that you should be micromanaging those damned poor people, with no clear picture of what you have in mind, other than making them toe the line, any line.

Got it.

Next.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is it reading comprehension or ignorant dick attitude that makes you incapable of having a conversation without making it about the personal? No wonder you're eating your liver out over what you imagine other people are doing. Get a grip.

It's my ******* money you dumbass. If you want the best of foods get a job and support yourself. If not be grateful to the tax payers that are supporting your dumbass.

Ignorant dick attitude it is. Call me when you grow up into a real conservative instead of stumbling by accident into a position and thinking it makes you mature.

So it's ignorant to expect people who otherwise wouldn't have what taxpayers are forced to provide them to buy it themselves if they want better or say thank you for those of us doing for them what they should be doing for themselves?

I'm not entirely sure I even understood what your question was.

Is it ignorant to expect people on welfare to say thank you or be grateful? Humans being what they are, I'd have to say yes, expecting gratitude is . . . naive.

Expecting a free ride is slack. Get a job.

Well, that was suitably pointless, kneejerk, and time-wasting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's my ******* money you dumbass. If you want the best of foods get a job and support yourself. If not be grateful to the tax payers that are supporting your dumbass.

Ignorant dick attitude it is. Call me when you grow up into a real conservative instead of stumbling by accident into a position and thinking it makes you mature.

So it's ignorant to expect people who otherwise wouldn't have what taxpayers are forced to provide them to buy it themselves if they want better or say thank you for those of us doing for them what they should be doing for themselves?

I'm not entirely sure I even understood what your question was.

Is it ignorant to expect people on welfare to say thank you or be grateful? Humans being what they are, I'd have to say yes, expecting gratitude is . . . naive.

Expecting a free ride is slack. Get a job.

Not only do we not get gratitude, we get demands from leeches about the stuff they get for nothing not being enough. It's one thing to rely on someone else for what should be provided by that person to that person, it's another when those getting it whine about the amount.

Of course we don't get gratitude. Of course we get demands. Still not addressing the point, though, which is any putative value to further controlling and micromanaging people's lives.

 

[Conservative65]

Ignorant dick attitude it is. Call me when you grow up into a real conservative instead of stumbling by accident into a position and thinking it makes you mature.

So it's ignorant to expect people who otherwise wouldn't have what taxpayers are forced to provide them to buy it themselves if they want better or say thank you for those of us doing for them what they should be doing for themselves?

I'm not entirely sure I even understood what your question was.

Is it ignorant to expect people on welfare to say thank you or be grateful? Humans being what they are, I'd have to say yes, expecting gratitude is . . . naive.

Expecting a free ride is slack. Get a job.

Not only do we not get gratitude, we get demands from leeches about the stuff they get for nothing not being enough. It's one thing to rely on someone else for what should be provided by that person to that person, it's another when those getting it whine about the amount.

Of course we don't get gratitude. Of course we get demands. Still not addressing the point, though, which is any putative value to further controlling and micromanaging people's lives.

So your answer is to ignore those that would ***** about not getting someone else's money and let them do as they wish with what you earned? There's a simple concept they need to understand. If they don't like the conditions, don't ask for the money. If they ask, shut the **** up when those of us forced to provide it to them expect to have a say it how it's spent.

My boss pays me, therefore, when I'm doing what he pays me to do, he dictates what I do and when I do it.

 

[Conservative65]

It's my ******* money you dumbass. If you want the best of foods get a job and support yourself. If not be grateful to the tax payers that are supporting your dumbass.

Ignorant dick attitude it is. Call me when you grow up into a real conservative instead of stumbling by accident into a position and thinking it makes you mature.

So it's ignorant to expect people who otherwise wouldn't have what taxpayers are forced to provide them to buy it themselves if they want better or say thank you for those of us doing for them what they should be doing for themselves?

I'm not entirely sure I even understood what your question was.

Is it ignorant to expect people on welfare to say thank you or be grateful? Humans being what they are, I'd have to say yes, expecting gratitude is . . . naive.

Expecting a free ride is slack. Get a job.

Well, that was suitably pointless, kneejerk, and time-wasting.

What's wrong with expecting people to support themselves? The wastes are those that demand someone else do it then ***** when they aren't handed as much as they want. To them I say what my dad told me as a kid when I said I wanted more. He said want in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up quicker. There's an idea. Let them shit in their hands then eat it.