Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[The Rabbi]

The higher the moocher class receives food stamps the louder the Democrats scream children are going hungry. Moochers should have to work for their food and at the very least turn around, take their hats off and bow when they say "thank you for providing my food for me so I can buy my beer and cigarettes and gas for my Tahoe" when they exit the grocery store check out.

40% of households getting foodstamps have at least one person in the household that has a job. The thing is, big corporations like WalMart and McDonalds actually instruct their employees how to apply for food stamps and section 8 and medicaid.

Yeah that's terrible. We need to restrict goverment programs to the truly needy, not people capable of working.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah that's terrible. We need to restrict goverment programs to the truly needy, not people capable of working.

What happened to you in your life to make you such a horrible person.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah that's terrible. We need to restrict goverment programs to the truly needy, not people capable of working.

What happened to you in your life to make you such a horrible person.

Deflection noted.
Why should people who are able to work collect government benefits?

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah that's terrible. We need to restrict goverment programs to the truly needy, not people capable of working.

What happened to you in your life to make you such a horrible person.

Deflection noted.
Why should people who are able to work collect government benefits?

because those jobs don't pay enough. Hey, here's an idea. I'd be all for abolishing food stamps if you raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour and make the rich pay their fair share of taxes.

Easy-peasy.

But being a horrible person, that probably wouldn't occur to you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wow, irony on steroids here.
A troll thread from Billy Three-Zip, whose name represents all he knows.
Hey, Billy. Remind us how government spending creates a mulitplier but spending by private companies doesn.t

I can't believe I have to explain this to you again. Stimuluating supply doesn't do jack shit do stimuluate demand which is how our economy works. The economy thrives on consumer spending. Stimulating supply would make sense if demand was stimulated just as much but republicans don't do that. They are morons like you.

The unemployed have no money to spend over time. Benefits gives them money. Consumer spending creates economic growth. Every dollar spent on businesses gives them profit. This isn't hard to figure out. This is capitalism 101.

Also, every dollar lost in revenue is replaced by 1.64 in growth. Bush's tax cuts only created .59 cents in growth for every dollar lost in revenue

Let me remind you how it was the oil and natural gas industries that saved this economy from the ******* shitter. Industries dominated by Republican voters, top to bottom. Industries who, on their own, developed and perfected the process of high volume high pressure hydraulic fracturing. The result? Just look at North Dakota and it's insanely low unemployment. These are middle-class shlubs with no secondary education making six figure incomes. Folks with that kind of money buy shit- houses, cars, whores. Whores! You see? They are why YOU have a job!

Cheap plentiful natural gas is rejuvenating domestic industries and drawing factories back into the U.S. Factories that employ Americans who make money and buy shit.

Oversupplies of domestic crude have driven down prices and put billions back into the pockets of all Americans. That money BUYS shit and keeps whores like you employed.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...amJo1yAUaXKsddg&bvm=bv.82001339,d.aWw&cad=rja

The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2008. Had every U.S. household paid an equal share of the federal regulatory burden, each would have owed $15,586 in 2008. By comparison, the federal regulatory burden exceeds by 50 percent private spending on health care, which equaled $10,500 per household in 2008. While all citizens and businesses pay some portion of these costs, the distribution of the burden of regulations is quite uneven. The portion of regulatory costs that falls initially on businesses was $8,086 per employee in 2008. Small businesses, defined as firms employing fewer than 20 employees, bear the largest burden of federal regulations. As of 2008, small businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms (defined as firms with 500 or more employees).

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yeah that's terrible. We need to restrict goverment programs to the truly needy, not people capable of working.

What happened to you in your life to make you such a horrible person.

Deflection noted.
Why should people who are able to work collect government benefits?

because those jobs don't pay enough. Hey, here's an idea. I'd be all for abolishing food stamps if you raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour and make the rich pay their fair share of taxes.

Easy-peasy.

But being a horrible person, that probably wouldn't occur to you.

Not me we need food stamps, you know why it was started right? Christian charity is not enough, just wished people didnt abuse it

 

[kaz]

Yeah that's terrible. We need to restrict goverment programs to the truly needy, not people capable of working.

What happened to you in your life to make you such a horrible person.

Deflection noted.
Why should people who are able to work collect government benefits?

because those jobs don't pay enough. Hey, here's an idea. I'd be all for abolishing food stamps if you raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour and make the rich pay their fair share of taxes.

Easy-peasy.

But being a horrible person, that probably wouldn't occur to you.

I see, so moving people to unemployment will cut down on food stamps? It may be literally true, but I'm not seeing the benefit.

 

[zeke]

Why should people who are able to work collect government benefits?

Why should people who do work be paid so little that they can get government benefits?

Would it be better for them (people who could work but don't) to get them a low wage job where they can still get government benefits? Yes it would.

Why don't you get Congress to lower the income qualification amount? You know, so that any one making over 5k a year are ineligible for ANY government assistance? Why don't you Republicans champion that idea? Or something similar.

And lastly rabbit, why don't you define just what jobs those people who you say are able to work, what jobs can they do that would pay enough that they not qualify for government assistance?

But I agree. If people are able to work, they should have a job. If they can't find a job though, they shouldn't be required to starve. If they need training to make them employable, they should get that training. If they are not trainable, what you want to do with them?

 

[Wyatt earp]

You can't have it both ways I thought the unemployment rate is under 6% and according to daddy poo Poo the part time jobs are a myth

Oh yea our economy is booming because of the boy king so why are more people on food stamps again?

Because they are to stupid to get a better job?

 

[Wyatt earp]

One of the 1st things they will do is go back to a 40 hour work week, that would help people working say at Walmart

 

[zeke]

Oh yea our economy is booming because of the boy king so why are more people on food stamps again?

Because they are to stupid to get a better job?

More people are on food stamps BECAUSE Congress won't lower the qualifying income to receive food stamps.

If Congress would simply say that anyone with an income over 5k (10k w.children) does not qualify for any government assistance, this problem would go away. Wouldn't it?

Is that something you think the new Republican controlled Congress will take up? Lowering the income number for qualifying for government assistance.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I don't get what you are saying you want to lower it? I thought you we're a lib ? Hell like I said I don't mind paying taxes for food stamps

 

[zeke]

I don't get what you are saying you want to lower it? I thought you we're a lib ? Hell like I said I don't mind paying taxes for food stamps

In case you missed it, there are a LOT of right wing Republicans on here who constantly complain about the numbers of people who receive food stamps and other government assistance.

I am asking them why they don't have their Congresspeople work to lower the income numbers that are used to determine IF a person qualifies for government assistance.

Now I don't think the Republicans on here (or any Repubs anywhere) will do that. It is much more valuable to them to have these poor people to ***** about rather than take the actions to remove poor people form government assistance by reducing the qualifying income.

 

[zeke]

The other choice Republicans could pursue would be to work for an increase in wages that would put many more people OVER the income threshold to qualify for government assistance.

But that ain't gonna happen either.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh I get it force the cheap skate big cooperations to pay, not a bad idea, but I think children would suffer in this political game, Not into that

 

[Wyatt earp]

See zeke I always thought a liberal idea I ready about in Seattle was the best solution, make a federal law no owner or CEO could make 20 or say 50 times more then his lowest employee

He or She could get paid what ever the stock holders want but then every one gets a raise

I know you will say thats unfair what about people working for a mom and pop company? But dont you think they would care and try harder?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah that's terrible. We need to restrict goverment programs to the truly needy, not people capable of working.

What happened to you in your life to make you such a horrible person.

Deflection noted.
Why should people who are able to work collect government benefits?

because those jobs don't pay enough. Hey, here's an idea. I'd be all for abolishing food stamps if you raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour and make the rich pay their fair share of taxes.

Easy-peasy.

But being a horrible person, that probably wouldn't occur to you.

Actually the problem is those people arent worth enough. Id be in favor of more vocational ed programs that would teach people skills they could actually use.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yea we really need more vocational high schools

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh yea our economy is booming because of the boy king so why are more people on food stamps again?

Because they are to stupid to get a better job?

More people are on food stamps BECAUSE Congress won't lower the qualifying income to receive food stamps.

If Congress would simply say that anyone with an income over 5k (10k w.children) does not qualify for any government assistance, this problem would go away. Wouldn't it?

Is that something you think the new Republican controlled Congress will take up? Lowering the income number for qualifying for government assistance.

Hey, Zeke, since food stamps chiefly benefits big Ag companies why are you in favor of more corporate welfare?

 

[zeke]

Oh I get it force the cheap skate big cooperations to pay, not a bad idea, but I think children would suffer in this political game, Not into that

You seem to favor the status quo.

For food stamps and other government assistance programs to have fewer people drawing from those programs one of two things has to happen.

1. either there are more good paying jobs created and the existing low pay jobs will have to pay workers enough that they don't qualify.

or

2. The income level that is used for qualifying for assistance has to come down to move people off the government programs by making them not qualify at their current income levels.

One or the other. But constantly bitching about this (government assistance programs) is doing nothing for anyone.