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

[RKMBrown]

Ayup.. if we are gonna help people eat we should do so by giving them beans, rice, flour, eggs, milk, salt, sugar, potatoes, kale, lettuce, carrots, oranges... not cash.

When I see what is in the market basket of folks getting food stamps, works for me. Unhealthy foods, expensive foods.

I don't hold with embarrasing folks. That is why I would prefer a system where poor folks got more cash in their stipend. Humilation does not work for me.

Let them get their unhealthy trashy food in peace

Why should I work my butt off so they can buy chips & soda?

Why should you work your butt off so they can buy anything? You lose me at the "paying for other people" line. I'm not going to be okay with it just because they buy things I approve of.

I have no choice my government forces me to fund this hand-out program. My income goes to this program, thus I'm paying for it. I would personally be less upset about my income being stolen and redistributed if we were feeding people who are starving if there is verification that they will in fact starve, that there are no charities available to feed them. But then I'd like to make sure it's food that makes more sense.

I have to disagree. I don't really give a damn what other people eat, I consider their ignorant insistence on eating junk to be a real-life demonstration of Darwin's "survival of the fittest", and there's absolutely nothing that's ever going to make me feel better about being strong-armed into a nanny government.

I don't give a shit what they want to eat... I just don't want to give them my money that I worked hard for just so they can piss it away on shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Republicans will say people on food stamps in Missouri are black. But only about 11% of the state is black. And yet about 16% get food stamps. And it's not likely that every black in Missouri get food stamps. Which of course would mean that plenty of whites get food stamps. And you know most whites in Missouri are Republican. So it's very likely that a lot of Republicans in Missouri get food stamps.
I kind of like when Republicans screw over their base. Especially with a presidential election coming up. Makes you wonder who they will vote for.

I'm 55 years old, and I have NEVER heard a single Republican EVER say "People on Food Stamps are black!" I've not heard it implied or suggested. Not by any Republican candidate, politician or elected official. Not by any Republican pundit or talk show host. The ONLY people I've ever heard this from are LIBERALS making the argument that Republicans claim this.

Rderp is a bigot, but he can't admit it to himself, so he projects it onto others, which allows him to say all the racist, hateful things he's thinking out loud by erroneously attributing them to some nebulous "them".

 

[Cecilie1200]

When I see what is in the market basket of folks getting food stamps, works for me. Unhealthy foods, expensive foods.

I don't hold with embarrasing folks. That is why I would prefer a system where poor folks got more cash in their stipend. Humilation does not work for me.

Let them get their unhealthy trashy food in peace

Why should I work my butt off so they can buy chips & soda?

Why should you work your butt off so they can buy anything? You lose me at the "paying for other people" line. I'm not going to be okay with it just because they buy things I approve of.

I have no choice my government forces me to fund this hand-out program. My income goes to this program, thus I'm paying for it. I would personally be less upset about my income being stolen and redistributed if we were feeding people who are starving if there is verification that they will in fact starve, that there are no charities available to feed them. But then I'd like to make sure it's food that makes more sense.

I have to disagree. I don't really give a damn what other people eat, I consider their ignorant insistence on eating junk to be a real-life demonstration of Darwin's "survival of the fittest", and there's absolutely nothing that's ever going to make me feel better about being strong-armed into a nanny government.

I don't give a shit what they want to eat... I just don't want to give them my money that I worked hard for just so they can piss it away on shit.

I don't want to give them my money, period. I consider it pissed away automatically at that point, regardless of what they buy.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why should I work my butt off so they can buy chips & soda?

Why should you work your butt off so they can buy anything? You lose me at the "paying for other people" line. I'm not going to be okay with it just because they buy things I approve of.

I have no choice my government forces me to fund this hand-out program. My income goes to this program, thus I'm paying for it. I would personally be less upset about my income being stolen and redistributed if we were feeding people who are starving if there is verification that they will in fact starve, that there are no charities available to feed them. But then I'd like to make sure it's food that makes more sense.

I have to disagree. I don't really give a damn what other people eat, I consider their ignorant insistence on eating junk to be a real-life demonstration of Darwin's "survival of the fittest", and there's absolutely nothing that's ever going to make me feel better about being strong-armed into a nanny government.

I don't give a shit what they want to eat... I just don't want to give them my money that I worked hard for just so they can piss it away on shit.

I don't want to give them my money, period. I consider it pissed away automatically at that point, regardless of what they buy.

I'm good with that. End all federal involvement in all social programs.

 

[Boss]

I don't want to give them my money, period. I consider it pissed away automatically at that point, regardless of what they buy.

I'm good with that. End all federal involvement in all social programs.

Okay, to play 'devil's advocate' here, what are we going to do about the '47%ers' who will riot and burn cities in protest over these measures?

The way I see it, you can't radically cut the cord any more than you can radically turn the country into a socialist nation. We have to use a conservative approach to problem solving and eliminating programs which do not work. Trim our budgets by cutting out pork-laden bills and the usual crap that goes on in Washington. This has become such a JOKE that they could literally go into session debating the 'End All Social Programs Act'... (sponsored by Brown and Cecilie)... and when finished, would actually result in an increase in overall social spending for the taxpayers.

We have to stop expecting government to "do more government" in order to fix stuff. It's not working, it just doesn't work. It's almost like being ass raped... the less action from the rapist the better. We need to find ways to solve our problems through private sector resources. If we don't ween America off this government dependency, we're in trouble... one way or another. We will have riots in the streets and a collapse of civilization, and that day is certainly coming.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't want to give them my money, period. I consider it pissed away automatically at that point, regardless of what they buy.

I'm good with that. End all federal involvement in all social programs.

Okay, to play 'devil's advocate' here, what are we going to do about the '47%ers' who will riot and burn cities in protest over these measures?

The way I see it, you can't radically cut the cord any more than you can radically turn the country into a socialist nation. We have to use a conservative approach to problem solving and eliminating programs which do not work. Trim our budgets by cutting out pork-laden bills and the usual crap that goes on in Washington. This has become such a JOKE that they could literally go into session debating the 'End All Social Programs Act'... (sponsored by Brown and Cecilie)... and when finished, would actually result in an increase in overall social spending for the taxpayers.

We have to stop expecting government to "do more government" in order to fix stuff. It's not working, it just doesn't work. It's almost like being ass raped... the less action from the rapist the better. We need to find ways to solve our problems through private sector resources. If we don't ween America off this government dependency, we're in trouble... one way or another. We will have riots in the streets and a collapse of civilization, and that day is certainly coming.

Thus my recommendation to switch over from hand-outs to hand-ups.

 

[Boss]

Thus my recommendation to switch over from hand-outs to hand-ups.

And there is nothing wrong with your idea, I support you on that. However, the reality is, we have a nation partially full of people who have become accustomed to the hand outs. So how do we transition without causing major turmoil and civil unrest?

I think part of our solution should be to make the "hand out" less desirable than what could be attained through effort and work. This introduces a 'motivation' to not accept the hand out for any longer than you need it. You're not "starving poor people to death" anymore.

 

[Dragonlady]

How about having a minimum wage that realistically could support one person living modestly. That way the working poor would get the money they earned, and you don't get to tell them how to live their lives.

 

[BlueGin]

How about having a minimum wage that realistically could support one person living modestly. That way the working poor would get the money they earned, and you don't get to tell them how to live their lives.

There will always be a working poor. Politicians and government workers make to much money off of exploiting them.

Keep dreaming

 

[Boss]

How about having a minimum wage that realistically could support one person living modestly. That way the working poor would get the money they earned, and you don't get to tell them how to live their lives.

Most free market capitalists can give you at least a dozen reasons this doesn't work. In fact, this week the news had a story about the big wig liberal CEO in Seattle who decided 3 months ago to pay all his employees $70k a year, same as his own salary.. uh oh... he has now "fallen on hard times" and will be discontinuing his policy. Three months! That's how long it took to fail.

You can't pay people based on what they need to fulfill their wants. People are paid by what they bring to the table and how much benefit they are to those who hire them. Minimum wage jobs were NEVER intended to be jobs that support anyone. If you force them into that role, you know what happens to those jobs? They disappear. If I have to pay you $15 an hr. to scrub my toilets, I'll just have to live with dirty toilets. OR-- I'll pay someone fairly well to invent a self-cleaning toilet and make the job obsolete. Now, instead of having a crappy minimum wage job, there is no job at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't want to give them my money, period. I consider it pissed away automatically at that point, regardless of what they buy.

I'm good with that. End all federal involvement in all social programs.

Okay, to play 'devil's advocate' here, what are we going to do about the '47%ers' who will riot and burn cities in protest over these measures?

The way I see it, you can't radically cut the cord any more than you can radically turn the country into a socialist nation. We have to use a conservative approach to problem solving and eliminating programs which do not work. Trim our budgets by cutting out pork-laden bills and the usual crap that goes on in Washington. This has become such a JOKE that they could literally go into session debating the 'End All Social Programs Act'... (sponsored by Brown and Cecilie)... and when finished, would actually result in an increase in overall social spending for the taxpayers.

We have to stop expecting government to "do more government" in order to fix stuff. It's not working, it just doesn't work. It's almost like being ass raped... the less action from the rapist the better. We need to find ways to solve our problems through private sector resources. If we don't ween America off this government dependency, we're in trouble... one way or another. We will have riots in the streets and a collapse of civilization, and that day is certainly coming.

I'm not suggesting radically cutting the cord. Correct and appropriate, sadly enough, do not equal feasible in this country at this juncture in our history.

At this point, what that leaves me is that I'm adamantly opposed to increasing and furthering the nanny mentality by trying to micromanage people's lives further. It's not good for the mindset of the micromanagers, nor for the mindset of those micromanaged, who will simply become ever more accustomed to depending on others to tell them how to think and live.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thus my recommendation to switch over from hand-outs to hand-ups.

And there is nothing wrong with your idea, I support you on that. However, the reality is, we have a nation partially full of people who have become accustomed to the hand outs. So how do we transition without causing major turmoil and civil unrest?

I think part of our solution should be to make the "hand out" less desirable than what could be attained through effort and work. This introduces a 'motivation' to not accept the hand out for any longer than you need it. You're not "starving poor people to death" anymore.

I think we also really screwed up when we lost the understanding that guilt and shame serve useful, necessary functions in society and started striving to make everyone feel good about everything they did, no matter what.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How about having a minimum wage that realistically could support one person living modestly. That way the working poor would get the money they earned, and you don't get to tell them how to live their lives.

Yes, what we REALLY want is to encourage people to settle into a nothing, entry-level, unskilled job that could be done just as well by an adolescent just out of junior high, or possibly a trained chimp.

Hey, why don't we just pay them a basic living stipend to sit on their dead asses on the couch in front of the boob tube, drinking beer? That way, they don't even have to leave their Section 8 apartments at all and get all sweaty and tired.

 

[Boss]

I'm not suggesting radically cutting the cord. Correct and appropriate, sadly enough, do not equal feasible in this country at this juncture in our history.

Exactly... we have to implement gradual changes, baby steps at first. Weed out programs that aren't working, replace some programs with better programs resourced through the private sector. Cut out the waste and redundancy. We can feed hungry people for a lot less than we're currently spending on the SNAP program and more importantly, motivate those people to get back on their feet and be productive to society again. It doesn't have to be ruthless and hardhearted... we can provide safety nets and essentials for those in need without running deficits every year.

 

[RKMBrown]

Thus my recommendation to switch over from hand-outs to hand-ups.

And there is nothing wrong with your idea, I support you on that. However, the reality is, we have a nation partially full of people who have become accustomed to the hand outs. So how do we transition without causing major turmoil and civil unrest?

I think part of our solution should be to make the "hand out" less desirable than what could be attained through effort and work. This introduces a 'motivation' to not accept the hand out for any longer than you need it. You're not "starving poor people to death" anymore.

Easy... give em a job, make em earn their income instead of handing it to them for nothing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thus my recommendation to switch over from hand-outs to hand-ups.

And there is nothing wrong with your idea, I support you on that. However, the reality is, we have a nation partially full of people who have become accustomed to the hand outs. So how do we transition without causing major turmoil and civil unrest?

I think part of our solution should be to make the "hand out" less desirable than what could be attained through effort and work. This introduces a 'motivation' to not accept the hand out for any longer than you need it. You're not "starving poor people to death" anymore.

Easy... give em a job, make em earn their income instead of handing it to them for nothing.

While I agree with you in principle, I wonder where we're supposed to get these jobs to just hand out to people not motivated enough to get their own, particularly in this economy.

 

[Camp]

Thus my recommendation to switch over from hand-outs to hand-ups.

And there is nothing wrong with your idea, I support you on that. However, the reality is, we have a nation partially full of people who have become accustomed to the hand outs. So how do we transition without causing major turmoil and civil unrest?

I think part of our solution should be to make the "hand out" less desirable than what could be attained through effort and work. This introduces a 'motivation' to not accept the hand out for any longer than you need it. You're not "starving poor people to death" anymore.

Easy... give em a job, make em earn their income instead of handing it to them for nothing.

While I agree with you in principle, I wonder where we're supposed to get these jobs to just hand out to people not motivated enough to get their own, particularly in this economy.

The concept of no work, no pay (benefits) is dependent on having jobs and transportation to the jobs. Often the programs that force welfare recipients to work end up costing more than if the recipient was just left alone. Until manufacturing jobs are returned to this country this problem will persist. As long as we make it profitable for companies to ship jobs overseas and off shore we are screwed.

 

[Boss]

The concept of no work, no pay (benefits) is dependent on having jobs and transportation to the jobs. Often the programs that force welfare recipients to work end up costing more than if the recipient was just left alone. Until manufacturing jobs are returned to this country this problem will persist. As long as we make it profitable for companies to ship jobs overseas and off shore we are screwed.

Well.. Four things cause the manufacturing jobs to leave in the first place. 1)Unions 2)Taxes 3NAFTA 4)GATT. Now, we're not going to get rid of unions or taxes, and we can't get rid of NAFTA and GATT. So we're screwed. You geniuses THINK that you can somehow force companies to bring jobs back by punishing outsourcing or making it more difficult to outsource... that won't solve this problem. You see... If the company moves it's HQ to the country where the production is done, it's not "outsourcing" anymore. On top of eliminating all the jobs, you've now eliminated all the companies who provide them as well.

If you are serious about wanting to bring back the manufacturing sector jobs, there are two things we can do. Reform collective bargaining so that we can roll back the ridiculous union overreach and bring union wages back into accordance with normal private sector labor. And, reduce or eliminate corporate taxation. I would eliminate it entirely.

 

[Camp]

The concept of no work, no pay (benefits) is dependent on having jobs and transportation to the jobs. Often the programs that force welfare recipients to work end up costing more than if the recipient was just left alone. Until manufacturing jobs are returned to this country this problem will persist. As long as we make it profitable for companies to ship jobs overseas and off shore we are screwed.

Well.. Four things cause the manufacturing jobs to leave in the first place. 1)Unions 2)Taxes 3NAFTA 4)GATT. Now, we're not going to get rid of unions or taxes, and we can't get rid of NAFTA and GATT. So we're screwed. You geniuses THINK that you can somehow force companies to bring jobs back by punishing outsourcing or making it more difficult to outsource... that won't solve this problem. You see... If the company moves it's HQ to the country where the production is done, it's not "outsourcing" anymore. On top of eliminating all the jobs, you've now eliminated all the companies who provide them as well.

If you are serious about wanting to bring back the manufacturing sector jobs, there are two things we can do. Reform collective bargaining so that we can roll back the ridiculous union overreach and bring union wages back into accordance with normal private sector labor. And, reduce or eliminate corporate taxation. I would eliminate it entirely.

Neither unions nor taxes send jobs overseas. We control the market. Without making product sales in the USA most of those companies will go out of business. Beer maker Sam Adams is threatening to move off shore. Lets watch what happens. Probably be the end of Sam Adams beer sales in America. Sort of like when Bud got sold to overseas investors. Sale plummeted and little American craft breweries surged. Populism is taking off in Republican and Democratic demo's. Pro America is trending.

 

[Boss]

Neither unions nor taxes send jobs overseas. We control the market. Without making product sales in the USA most of those companies will go out of business. Beer maker Sam Adams is threatening to move off shore. Lets watch what happens. Probably be the end of Sam Adams beer sales in America. Sort of like when Bud got sold to overseas investors. Sale plummeted and little American craft breweries surged. Populism is taking off in Republican and Democratic demo's. Pro America is trending.

Ever-increasing union demands as well as ever-increasing tax and regulation cannot be described any other rational way except a mitigating factor for why corporations outsource labor. If you are too stupid or illiterate to understand what a "mitigating factor" is... can't do much to help ya.

If you read my post entirely, you will see that I listed two more things besides unions and taxes... did you forget to include them? These two things are important to my argument. You see, it was the combination of unions/taxes along with passage of NAFTA and GATT which enabled corporations to send jobs to our new trade partners. Those who were vehemently opposed to NAFTA and GATT (I was one of them) tried to warn you that this was going to happen. Then, just like now, you would not listen. This was going to help all these third world countries economically, and that was going to make the world better... share the wealth... It was going to force our companies to be more competitive, it was going to drive wages up in these foreign countries because they would have to compete with the American workers... none of it worked out like your people planned and now our manufacturing sector jobs are all gone.