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

[danielpalos]

Don't gimme any crap about how poor people need a balanced diet. As it is these snappers spend all this money on junk food. A diet of staples will be better for them. And MUCH cheaper for the taxpayers. Eating just those 4 staples, a person can live on a dollar a day.

Personally, I think the easiest way would be to stock some food pantries with healthy food and allow people to come in and pick up what they need on a weekly basis. Just don't offer junk. No different than schools these days. If people don't live near food pantries, we can deliver to handicapped or restrict what can be purchased in grocery stores.

My mother hits the food pantries. She finds plenty of cake, donuts, pastries we could never afford or waste our money to buy and gourmet breads. But veggies and fruit are hard to find.

You can get fresh veggies at the farmers market. And the do take snap.

RedGin was starting to look appealing, while you were gone.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

There are people who work every waking minute and they don't make enough money to live decently much less go to college. I myself can't find decent work. I type 85 wpm, I program in COBOL, 10 key 14kph, and nobody hires me. I make my money working for myself undercutting other people and barely squeaking out a profit. Besides I'm worn out. My skills are decades outdated but I simply can't do college not only because I don't have the money and the time or the transportation (my car got repo'd) but I also don't have the energy. I'm burnt out. I'm tired of fighting a loosing battle. I am long past ready for retirement.

But i bet you live in a big house and have a brand new car and spend $100 a month in smart phone use.

You can live like a king in america on $15,000 a year, if you're smart.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I think we should offer recipes with detailed instructions to encourage people to try to cook more. Those 10 lb. bags of chicken would make quite a few meals, from barbecue chicken to chicken soup but some people are unsure how to cook it.

10 pounds of chicken?? A 10 pound bag of rice has 20,000 calories and will feed one person for over a week. And all you need to do is boil water.

 

[danielpalos]

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

At minimum, those eeking out a living shouldn't be taxed out of the money they need to survive on. Education should be provided for the ones willing to accel. And anyone who works for a living should earn a living.

What's wrong with providing your own education? We live in a country where you can take loans out to pursue your dreams.

My nephew is 31 years old now, and he is still paying off his college loans as is his wife. This is on top of the loans my sister took for him that will have her repaying until after retirement.

Education is an investment no different than investing in other things like the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, or any other. An investment is where you spend your own money hoping to get that money back plus a profit.

What is wrong is if you don't give people the opportunity to get out of poverty it's inhumane. They become a slave class with no hope of ever succeeding. Then you create a fake religion so they stupidly think they'll be rewarded in the next life in order to placate the lower classes.

Incorporated - Season 1

What I'd like to know is how we don't give people the opportunity to get out of poverty. Nobody is stoping anybody from working or working more hours. Nobody is stopping anybody from getting training to learn a new career.

There are people who work every waking minute and they don't make enough money to live decently much less go to college. I myself can't find decent work. I type 85 wpm, I program in COBOL, 10 key 14kph, and nobody hires me. I make my money working for myself undercutting other people and barely squeaking out a profit. Besides I'm worn out. My skills are decades outdated but I simply can't do college not only because I don't have the money and the time or the transportation (my car got repo'd) but I also don't have the energy. I'm burnt out. I'm tired of fighting a loosing battle. I am long past ready for retirement.

You should be able to apply for unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed. A lack of equal protection of the law is simply steading from the poor so the rich can get richer faster. capitalism calls it a profit motive. it is not a social motive.

 

[teapartysamurai]

No, nice try but those write offs, whether you think them legit or not, is THEIR MONEY. It's not the government's money.

EBT is the OUR TAX DOLLARS, not something the "rich" earned and greedy liberals think should be theirs.

But it's another reveal of the liberal mindset that you would think that money belongs to the government.

it is about equality, not capital. it is not the poor's fault, that the rich are not creating Jobs Booms for their capital gains preference.

No, sorry it is NOT about equality.

Equality is the way leftists try to confiscate the goods of those who work for those who don't.

That's not "equality." That's wealth distribution.

Leftists use equality to oppress people. Communists did this by confiscating land and wealth, to "give to the poor."

Yet the poor stayed poor, and the state got rich.

That is what wealth distribution does. Obama did wealth distribution plenty. Who got rich but Obama and his Wallstreet cronies.

yes, it is specifically about equality. you are simply clueless and Causeless. it is about the social concept of equality and equal protection of the law, not the capitalism of the concept of private ownership.

Yeah yeah Yeah, let's go into that communist utopia together.

Never mind all the bodies we have to step over.



View attachment 104968

only the right wing are a bunch of communists and don't know it.

the left may try to be poets, and know it.

it is about the social concept of equality and equal protection of the law, not the capitalism of the concept of private ownership. it is just not specifically, about guns; that is why you missed the concept of natural rights.

unlike national and social, infringement to natural rights regarding freedom of association and (employment) contract; as the right wing's preferred modus operandi, that enables them to "throw capitalism under the bus" for the communism of command economics.

Well you keep saying it's "about" all those things, and not capitalism, but all those concepts you say it's "about" failed and capitalism rolls merrily on.

'nuff said.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about equality, not capital. it is not the poor's fault, that the rich are not creating Jobs Booms for their capital gains preference.

No, sorry it is NOT about equality.

Equality is the way leftists try to confiscate the goods of those who work for those who don't.

That's not "equality." That's wealth distribution.

Leftists use equality to oppress people. Communists did this by confiscating land and wealth, to "give to the poor."

Yet the poor stayed poor, and the state got rich.

That is what wealth distribution does. Obama did wealth distribution plenty. Who got rich but Obama and his Wallstreet cronies.

yes, it is specifically about equality. you are simply clueless and Causeless. it is about the social concept of equality and equal protection of the law, not the capitalism of the concept of private ownership.

Yeah yeah Yeah, let's go into that communist utopia together.

Never mind all the bodies we have to step over.



View attachment 104968

only the right wing are a bunch of communists and don't know it.

the left may try to be poets, and know it.

it is about the social concept of equality and equal protection of the law, not the capitalism of the concept of private ownership. it is just not specifically, about guns; that is why you missed the concept of natural rights.

unlike national and social, infringement to natural rights regarding freedom of association and (employment) contract; as the right wing's preferred modus operandi, that enables them to "throw capitalism under the bus" for the communism of command economics.

Well you keep saying it's "about" all those things, and not capitalism, but all those concepts you say it's "about" failed and capitalism rolls merrily on.

'nuff said.

Only in right wing fantasy. Capitalism died in 1929, and socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.

 

[BlueGin]

Don't gimme any crap about how poor people need a balanced diet. As it is these snappers spend all this money on junk food. A diet of staples will be better for them. And MUCH cheaper for the taxpayers. Eating just those 4 staples, a person can live on a dollar a day.

Personally, I think the easiest way would be to stock some food pantries with healthy food and allow people to come in and pick up what they need on a weekly basis. Just don't offer junk. No different than schools these days. If people don't live near food pantries, we can deliver to handicapped or restrict what can be purchased in grocery stores.

My mother hits the food pantries. She finds plenty of cake, donuts, pastries we could never afford or waste our money to buy and gourmet breads. But veggies and fruit are hard to find.

You can get fresh veggies at the farmers market. And the do take snap.

RedGin was starting to look appealing, while you were gone.

Stop whining

 

[danielpalos]

RedGin has a happy camper policy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[Q


In other words, you have no idea what equal protection under the law means. Why am I not surprised?

He thinks that "equal protection" means that the government should give him a welfare check as big as the paycheck of a Corporate Executive because then they both will be equal.

They really believe that too. They think equal protection means equal outcome.

Our government doesn't guarantee happiness, but they guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Liberals just don't get that.

equal protection of the law; not your fantastical right wing, strawman arguments that you can easily beat, to "look tough".

You look dumber and dumber when you talk about Equal Protection under the law because you don't have a clue what it means. Stick to things you might know something about.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is there something wrong with that? Don't companies have the right to choose who they pay what to?

And the free market corrects. If that CEO is being paid beyond what he's worth to the company, or the workers are being paid less than they're worth, the company won't be around for very long.

Agreed. If a CEO is getting paid 12 million dollars a year, chances are, that CEO is bringing in 20 million a year to the company. If the company doesn't want to pay that CEO 12 million dollars a year, their competitor will, and they will make that profit instead and perhaps put that first company out of business.

Pay workers more and the CEO less, that's likely to happen, but some people just don't get that.

How did that work for Enron?

It doesn't work for everybody, just most companies. CEO's get hired and fired all the time. No place is home. They have to pickup their family and move all the time.

maybe, but, the rich may get to keep their multimillion dollar bonus while on means tested corporate welfare; the poor don't get that option.

Yes they get to keep it, just like an actress keeps her 10 mil for doing a movie that turned out to be a flop, or a musician that got paid 2 mil for a recording that didn't sell very well. That's how contracts work.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

At minimum, those eeking out a living shouldn't be taxed out of the money they need to survive on. Education should be provided for the ones willing to accel. And anyone who works for a living should earn a living.

What's wrong with providing your own education? We live in a country where you can take loans out to pursue your dreams.

My nephew is 31 years old now, and he is still paying off his college loans as is his wife. This is on top of the loans my sister took for him that will have her repaying until after retirement.

Education is an investment no different than investing in other things like the stock market, the commodities market, real estate, or any other. An investment is where you spend your own money hoping to get that money back plus a profit.

What is wrong is if you don't give people the opportunity to get out of poverty it's inhumane. They become a slave class with no hope of ever succeeding. Then you create a fake religion so they stupidly think they'll be rewarded in the next life in order to placate the lower classes.

Incorporated - Season 1

What I'd like to know is how we don't give people the opportunity to get out of poverty. Nobody is stoping anybody from working or working more hours. Nobody is stopping anybody from getting training to learn a new career.

There are people who work every waking minute and they don't make enough money to live decently much less go to college. I myself can't find decent work. I type 85 wpm, I program in COBOL, 10 key 14kph, and nobody hires me. I make my money working for myself undercutting other people and barely squeaking out a profit. Besides I'm worn out. My skills are decades outdated but I simply can't do college not only because I don't have the money and the time or the transportation (my car got repo'd) but I also don't have the energy. I'm burnt out. I'm tired of fighting a loosing battle. I am long past ready for retirement.

If there are people working a job night and day but still can't make it, then they made a lot of bad decisions in their life.

If you are retirement age, then retire. Go on SS and whatever you saved for retirement.

 

[danielpalos]

[Q


In other words, you have no idea what equal protection under the law means. Why am I not surprised?

He thinks that "equal protection" means that the government should give him a welfare check as big as the paycheck of a Corporate Executive because then they both will be equal.

They really believe that too. They think equal protection means equal outcome.

Our government doesn't guarantee happiness, but they guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Liberals just don't get that.

equal protection of the law; not your fantastical right wing, strawman arguments that you can easily beat, to "look tough".

You look dumber and dumber when you talk about Equal Protection under the law because you don't have a clue what it means. Stick to things you might know something about.

projecting much? i actually have a valid argument, why don't you? mooching and slacking, and blaming the poor on the left?

 

[danielpalos]

And the free market corrects. If that CEO is being paid beyond what he's worth to the company, or the workers are being paid less than they're worth, the company won't be around for very long.

Agreed. If a CEO is getting paid 12 million dollars a year, chances are, that CEO is bringing in 20 million a year to the company. If the company doesn't want to pay that CEO 12 million dollars a year, their competitor will, and they will make that profit instead and perhaps put that first company out of business.

Pay workers more and the CEO less, that's likely to happen, but some people just don't get that.

How did that work for Enron?

It doesn't work for everybody, just most companies. CEO's get hired and fired all the time. No place is home. They have to pickup their family and move all the time.

maybe, but, the rich may get to keep their multimillion dollar bonus while on means tested corporate welfare; the poor don't get that option.

Yes they get to keep it, just like an actress keeps her 10 mil for doing a movie that turned out to be a flop, or a musician that got paid 2 mil for a recording that didn't sell very well. That's how contracts work.

not on means tested welfare for the poor.

 

[Flash]

[

projecting much? i actually have a valid argument, why don't you? mooching and slacking, and blaming the poor on the left?

It is not valid to claim that the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution somehow requires the filthy ass government to guarantee equal outcomes.

Of course it is good to hear you claim something as stupid as that because it just reinforces the fact that you Moon Bats are dumber than door knobs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Agreed. If a CEO is getting paid 12 million dollars a year, chances are, that CEO is bringing in 20 million a year to the company. If the company doesn't want to pay that CEO 12 million dollars a year, their competitor will, and they will make that profit instead and perhaps put that first company out of business.

Pay workers more and the CEO less, that's likely to happen, but some people just don't get that.

How did that work for Enron?

It doesn't work for everybody, just most companies. CEO's get hired and fired all the time. No place is home. They have to pickup their family and move all the time.

maybe, but, the rich may get to keep their multimillion dollar bonus while on means tested corporate welfare; the poor don't get that option.

Yes they get to keep it, just like an actress keeps her 10 mil for doing a movie that turned out to be a flop, or a musician that got paid 2 mil for a recording that didn't sell very well. That's how contracts work.

not on means tested welfare for the poor.

Welfare for the poor is not a job yet alone a contract job.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[Q


In other words, you have no idea what equal protection under the law means. Why am I not surprised?

He thinks that "equal protection" means that the government should give him a welfare check as big as the paycheck of a Corporate Executive because then they both will be equal.

They really believe that too. They think equal protection means equal outcome.

Our government doesn't guarantee happiness, but they guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Liberals just don't get that.

equal protection of the law; not your fantastical right wing, strawman arguments that you can easily beat, to "look tough".

You look dumber and dumber when you talk about Equal Protection under the law because you don't have a clue what it means. Stick to things you might know something about.

projecting much? i actually have a valid argument, why don't you? mooching and slacking, and blaming the poor on the left?

I do blame the poor on the left. They promote poverty. Long ago their women's movement promoted single-parent families which are directly related to poverty. Fast forward to today, over 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock.

Their idiotic social programs gave them cover to remain poor while being able to live on the government just the same as working. They promoted the poor having children that locked most into poverty for life with virtually no escape.

Now, to equal protection: It was originally put in the Constitution to guarantee blacks equal rights to whites. It guarantees you that the law will treat you the same as somebody else. It has nothing to do with unemployment unless you were denied unemployment benefits while somebody in your same situation got those benefits.

 

[danielpalos]

[

projecting much? i actually have a valid argument, why don't you? mooching and slacking, and blaming the poor on the left?

It is not valid to claim that the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution somehow requires the filthy ass government to guarantee equal outcomes.

Of course it is good to hear you claim something as stupid as that because it just reinforces the fact that you Moon Bats are dumber than door knobs.

You must be on the right. Equal outcome is equal protection of the law, in this case. Employment is at-will. The outcome must be the same regardless of who ends the relationship.

 

[danielpalos]

How did that work for Enron?

It doesn't work for everybody, just most companies. CEO's get hired and fired all the time. No place is home. They have to pickup their family and move all the time.

maybe, but, the rich may get to keep their multimillion dollar bonus while on means tested corporate welfare; the poor don't get that option.

Yes they get to keep it, just like an actress keeps her 10 mil for doing a movie that turned out to be a flop, or a musician that got paid 2 mil for a recording that didn't sell very well. That's how contracts work.

not on means tested welfare for the poor.

Welfare for the poor is not a job yet alone a contract job.

neither is corporate welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

He thinks that "equal protection" means that the government should give him a welfare check as big as the paycheck of a Corporate Executive because then they both will be equal.

They really believe that too. They think equal protection means equal outcome.

Our government doesn't guarantee happiness, but they guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Liberals just don't get that.

equal protection of the law; not your fantastical right wing, strawman arguments that you can easily beat, to "look tough".

You look dumber and dumber when you talk about Equal Protection under the law because you don't have a clue what it means. Stick to things you might know something about.

projecting much? i actually have a valid argument, why don't you? mooching and slacking, and blaming the poor on the left?

I do blame the poor on the left. They promote poverty. Long ago their women's movement promoted single-parent families which are directly related to poverty. Fast forward to today, over 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock.

Their idiotic social programs gave them cover to remain poor while being able to live on the government just the same as working. They promoted the poor having children that locked most into poverty for life with virtually no escape.

Now, to equal protection: It was originally put in the Constitution to guarantee blacks equal rights to whites. It guarantees you that the law will treat you the same as somebody else. It has nothing to do with unemployment unless you were denied unemployment benefits while somebody in your same situation got those benefits.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Hooverville failed as an ideology; only the right likes to repeat historical mistakes after 1929.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Now, to equal protection: It was originally put in the Constitution to guarantee blacks equal rights to whites. .

And now, thanks to affirmative action, it's the whites who are routinely denied equal protection. Been going on for 50 years.