SNAP (food stamps) should be restricted to rice, flour, rolled oats, and sugar

[danielpalos]

No, they are very generous with the food stamps. But what happens is that people get together and pool their SNAP's cards together. Whatever they don't use they sell for cash.

Do you even know how much a person gets with food stamps per month?

Not if I don't have to care how much the rich make or how much they pay in personal income taxes.

Liar.

why should i have to care, if i could collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, that either, clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than the current statutory minimum wage.

in that same manner, those who are richer should not have to care, either.

Why don't you just get a fuckin' job?

underpayment; capitalists are just cheap. i am Not lazy.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they are very generous with the food stamps. But what happens is that people get together and pool their SNAP's cards together. Whatever they don't use they sell for cash.

Do you even know how much a person gets with food stamps per month?

Not if I don't have to care how much the rich make or how much they pay in personal income taxes.

Liar.

why should i have to care, if i could collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, that either, clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than the current statutory minimum wage.

in that same manner, those who are richer should not have to care, either.

It doesn't matter how rich you are. You always watch your money and where it's going.

it is going to the rich, not the middle class. why do you want to "reimburse yourself" from the poor?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It should be very uncomfortable to be poor so that everybody would have the strong incentive to get out of it.

how socialist of you. capitalism is about voluntary social transactions including, employment at will.

Correct, employment at will. But when you decide not to be employed, we shouldn't have people who are employed paying your way.

why not? you are paying for capitalism, and capitalism's natural rate of unemployment; it is what keeps a PoliceStateUSA, at bay.

No, it encourages people not to work, and we have enough of that already. It's like Limbaugh said so many times: If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

do you not believe in capitalism? who cares if they don't want to work and earn a bonus; it means, those who do, will.

When you take my money that I work for so you can optionally stay home and watch television all day, that's not capitalism, that's socialism.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you even know how much a person gets with food stamps per month?

Not if I don't have to care how much the rich make or how much they pay in personal income taxes.

Liar.

why should i have to care, if i could collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, that either, clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than the current statutory minimum wage.

in that same manner, those who are richer should not have to care, either.

It doesn't matter how rich you are. You always watch your money and where it's going.

it is going to the rich, not the middle class. why do you want to "reimburse yourself" from the poor?

Not in the least bit. The only place money "goes" is to the poor and the lazy. Money doesn't "go" to the rich, it's created by the rich and then taken from them..

 

[Muhammed]

Do you even know how much a person gets with food stamps per month?

Not if I don't have to care how much the rich make or how much they pay in personal income taxes.

Liar.

why should i have to care, if i could collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, that either, clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than the current statutory minimum wage.

in that same manner, those who are richer should not have to care, either.

Why don't you just get a fuckin' job?

underpayment; capitalists are just cheap. i am Not lazy.

You are not very convincing either.

 

[danielpalos]

how socialist of you. capitalism is about voluntary social transactions including, employment at will.

Correct, employment at will. But when you decide not to be employed, we shouldn't have people who are employed paying your way.

why not? you are paying for capitalism, and capitalism's natural rate of unemployment; it is what keeps a PoliceStateUSA, at bay.

No, it encourages people not to work, and we have enough of that already. It's like Limbaugh said so many times: If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

do you not believe in capitalism? who cares if they don't want to work and earn a bonus; it means, those who do, will.

When you take my money that I work for so you can optionally stay home and watch television all day, that's not capitalism, that's socialism.

You don't have to work if you don't want to; underpayment is capitalism, not socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

Not if I don't have to care how much the rich make or how much they pay in personal income taxes.

Liar.

why should i have to care, if i could collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, that either, clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than the current statutory minimum wage.

in that same manner, those who are richer should not have to care, either.

It doesn't matter how rich you are. You always watch your money and where it's going.

it is going to the rich, not the middle class. why do you want to "reimburse yourself" from the poor?

Not in the least bit. The only place money "goes" is to the poor and the lazy. Money doesn't "go" to the rich, it's created by the rich and then taken from them..

nothing but right wing fantasy?

During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#Wealth_distribution

 

[danielpalos]

Not if I don't have to care how much the rich make or how much they pay in personal income taxes.

Liar.

why should i have to care, if i could collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, that either, clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than the current statutory minimum wage.

in that same manner, those who are richer should not have to care, either.

Why don't you just get a fuckin' job?

underpayment; capitalists are just cheap. i am Not lazy.

You are not very convincing either.

i am not working. that is all the proof you need. you cannot claim i am lazy unless there is a bonus it.

 

[Dragonlady]

Not in the least bit. The only place money "goes" is to the poor and the lazy. Money doesn't "go" to the rich, it's created by the rich and then taken from them..

So when the wealthy refuse to pay their workers a living wage because the government says they don't have to, and they choose to pay their executives and their shareholders, you're just fine with subsidizing their payroll so that the executives and the shareholders get more.

 

[Muhammed]

Liar.

why should i have to care, if i could collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, that either, clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than the current statutory minimum wage.

in that same manner, those who are richer should not have to care, either.

Why don't you just get a fuckin' job?

underpayment; capitalists are just cheap. i am Not lazy.

You are not very convincing either.

i am not working. that is all the proof you need. you cannot claim i am lazy unless there is a bonus it.

Why don't you work, Dani? Haven't you ever found a way to be a productive member of society?

What's up?

 

[danielpalos]

why should i have to care, if i could collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, that either, clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than the current statutory minimum wage.

in that same manner, those who are richer should not have to care, either.

Why don't you just get a fuckin' job?

underpayment; capitalists are just cheap. i am Not lazy.

You are not very convincing either.

i am not working. that is all the proof you need. you cannot claim i am lazy unless there is a bonus it.

Why don't you work, Dani? Haven't you ever found a way to be a productive member of society?

What's up?

I have True Faith in Capitalism and capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. Alas, true Capitalists like Henry Ford, are nowhere to be found in modern times.

 

[Muhammed]

No, they are very generous with the food stamps. But what happens is that people get together and pool their SNAP's cards together. Whatever they don't use they sell for cash.

Do you even know how much a person gets with food stamps per month?

Not if I don't have to care how much the rich make or how much they pay in personal income taxes.

Liar.

why should i have to care, if i could collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, that either, clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than the current statutory minimum wage.

in that same manner, those who are richer should not have to care, either.

Why don't you just get a fuckin' job?

That was mean. I sincerely apologize. I do not know danielpalos' life circumstances.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not in the least bit. The only place money "goes" is to the poor and the lazy. Money doesn't "go" to the rich, it's created by the rich and then taken from them..

So when the wealthy refuse to pay their workers a living wage because the government says they don't have to, and they choose to pay their executives and their shareholders, you're just fine with subsidizing their payroll so that the executives and the shareholders get more.

People get paid what they are worth. The shareholders and executives are not being subsidized by anybody.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, employment at will. But when you decide not to be employed, we shouldn't have people who are employed paying your way.

why not? you are paying for capitalism, and capitalism's natural rate of unemployment; it is what keeps a PoliceStateUSA, at bay.

No, it encourages people not to work, and we have enough of that already. It's like Limbaugh said so many times: If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

do you not believe in capitalism? who cares if they don't want to work and earn a bonus; it means, those who do, will.

When you take my money that I work for so you can optionally stay home and watch television all day, that's not capitalism, that's socialism.

You don't have to work if you don't want to; underpayment is capitalism, not socialism.

It is socialism. If you're living on other people's money, that's socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

Not in the least bit. The only place money "goes" is to the poor and the lazy. Money doesn't "go" to the rich, it's created by the rich and then taken from them..

So when the wealthy refuse to pay their workers a living wage because the government says they don't have to, and they choose to pay their executives and their shareholders, you're just fine with subsidizing their payroll so that the executives and the shareholders get more.

People get paid what they are worth. The shareholders and executives are not being subsidized by anybody.

worth is relative. Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages not minimum wages.

 

[danielpalos]

why not? you are paying for capitalism, and capitalism's natural rate of unemployment; it is what keeps a PoliceStateUSA, at bay.

No, it encourages people not to work, and we have enough of that already. It's like Limbaugh said so many times: If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

do you not believe in capitalism? who cares if they don't want to work and earn a bonus; it means, those who do, will.

When you take my money that I work for so you can optionally stay home and watch television all day, that's not capitalism, that's socialism.

You don't have to work if you don't want to; underpayment is capitalism, not socialism.

It is socialism. If you're living on other people's money, that's socialism.

dude; using the (other) People's tax monies is socialism, so what is your point?

Socialism starts with a Social Contract like a federal or State Constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not in the least bit. The only place money "goes" is to the poor and the lazy. Money doesn't "go" to the rich, it's created by the rich and then taken from them..

So when the wealthy refuse to pay their workers a living wage because the government says they don't have to, and they choose to pay their executives and their shareholders, you're just fine with subsidizing their payroll so that the executives and the shareholders get more.

People get paid what they are worth. The shareholders and executives are not being subsidized by anybody.

worth is relative. Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages not minimum wages.

Because he felt that's what it took to keep good workers. And it's not relative. A persons worth to an employer is what a company can get another person to do the same quality of work for.

If you scrub toilets for a living, sweep floors, or stock shelves, those are jobs you can train a monkey to do, therefore because anybody can do these jobs, they don't pay very well because if you don't want to take that job, somebody else will.

Less likely if you are skilled such as an electrician, HVAC, carpenter, bricklayer, you make much better money because an employer can't find just anybody to do that kind of work. You need education, training, and experience.

If you study hard and become a doctor, lawyer, engineer, pharmacist, you make great money because most people can't do those jobs.

The bottom line is the less people that have the ability to do your job, the more money you are worth to an employer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, it encourages people not to work, and we have enough of that already. It's like Limbaugh said so many times: If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

do you not believe in capitalism? who cares if they don't want to work and earn a bonus; it means, those who do, will.

When you take my money that I work for so you can optionally stay home and watch television all day, that's not capitalism, that's socialism.

You don't have to work if you don't want to; underpayment is capitalism, not socialism.

It is socialism. If you're living on other people's money, that's socialism.

dude; using the (other) People's tax monies is socialism, so what is your point?

Socialism starts with a Social Contract like a federal or State Constitution.

That is my point. When you use others money to support yourself, it is socialism. Where do you think this unemployment money comes from? It came from other people that created that money.

 

[danielpalos]

Not in the least bit. The only place money "goes" is to the poor and the lazy. Money doesn't "go" to the rich, it's created by the rich and then taken from them..

So when the wealthy refuse to pay their workers a living wage because the government says they don't have to, and they choose to pay their executives and their shareholders, you're just fine with subsidizing their payroll so that the executives and the shareholders get more.

People get paid what they are worth. The shareholders and executives are not being subsidized by anybody.

worth is relative. Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages not minimum wages.

Because he felt that's what it took to keep good workers. And it's not relative. A persons worth to an employer is what a company can get another person to do the same quality of work for.

If you scrub toilets for a living, sweep floors, or stock shelves, those are jobs you can train a monkey to do, therefore because anybody can do these jobs, they don't pay very well because if you don't want to take that job, somebody else will.

Less likely if you are skilled such as an electrician, HVAC, carpenter, bricklayer, you make much better money because an employer can't find just anybody to do that kind of work. You need education, training, and experience.

If you study hard and become a doctor, lawyer, engineer, pharmacist, you make great money because most people can't do those jobs.

The bottom line is the less people that have the ability to do your job, the more money you are worth to an employer.

The point was; he doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages. why is the right whining about it.

 

[danielpalos]

do you not believe in capitalism? who cares if they don't want to work and earn a bonus; it means, those who do, will.

When you take my money that I work for so you can optionally stay home and watch television all day, that's not capitalism, that's socialism.

You don't have to work if you don't want to; underpayment is capitalism, not socialism.

It is socialism. If you're living on other people's money, that's socialism.

dude; using the (other) People's tax monies is socialism, so what is your point?

Socialism starts with a Social Contract like a federal or State Constitution.

That is my point. When you use others money to support yourself, it is socialism. Where do you think this unemployment money comes from? It came from other people that created that money.

our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror are being funded by socialism, and you are complaining about unemployment compensation?