The Mean Party

[SkyDekker 1,145]

kallend

Republicans show their mean streak again:

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/chi-missouri-republican-food-stamps-20150405-story.html

I wonder how much money is being spent by welfare recipients on these items?

Then I wonder how much money has been spent debating this bill and moving it forward.

I have this feeling that more money has been spent on creating this bill than will ever be saved by its implementation.

Yet, many republicans will proudly proclaim how they don't want to waste taxpayers' money....

[Hjeada 0]

kallend

So you see nothing wrong with bundling a trip to a swimming pool or a movie which, IMO, are perfectly reasonable activities for anyone including the poor, along with a bunch of mythical "abuses" which don't actually happen, in order to make the mean restrictions seem reasonable?

Please tell me how a trip to the pool or the movie theater is a basic necessity? Does one need to go swimming or see a movie on the big screen to live? The fact that you are advocating for this to be paid for by the gov't is more than disturbing. Those are not basic needs and the gov't should not be funding them.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[kallend 1,648]

Hjeada

***So you see nothing wrong with bundling a trip to a swimming pool or a movie which, IMO, are perfectly reasonable activities for anyone including the poor, along with a bunch of mythical "abuses" which don't actually happen, in order to make the mean restrictions seem reasonable?

Please tell me how a trip to the pool or the movie theater is a basic necessity? Does one need to go swimming or see a movie on the big screen to live? The fact that you are advocating for this to be paid for by the gov't is more than disturbing. Those are not basic needs and the gov't should not be funding them.

So why does the government subsidize Mercedes and Maseratis for bailed out bankers, tropical cruises for farmers, and private jets for oil company execs? Could it be that these folks donate to GOP campaign funds?

But taking poor kids to the swimming pool is a luxury. No campaign donations to be had there.

Do you take a mortgage interest deduction? Go to a taxpayer supported school or college? Drive on taxpayer funded roads?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,648]

SkyDekker

***

Republicans show their mean streak again:

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/chi-missouri-republican-food-stamps-20150405-story.html

I wonder how much money is being spent by welfare recipients on these items?.

Well, no-one knows because they didn't do any research.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 58]

Why should poor people be rewarded for being poor?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Hjeada 0]

kallend

So why does the government subsidize Mercedes and Maseratis for bailed out bankers, tropical cruises for farmers, and private jets for oil company execs? Could it be that these folks donate to GOP campaign funds?

But taking poor kids to the swimming pool is a luxury. No campaign donations to be had there.

Do you take a mortgage interest deduction? Go to a taxpayer supported school or college? Drive on taxpayer funded roads?

I have a huge problem with the farm subsidies, and the bail outs (if the corporation can't succeed without a bailout, then it should be allowed to fail), no argument there. While I don't take a mortgage deduction myself since I don't own a house, I agree, shouldn't be a deduction. I do drive on roads and my children do go to a taxpayer supported school, however, I pay a considerable amount of tax which goes to fund those so you won't guilt me there. When people ask for direct gov't assistance, it should be for needs, not wants. I regularly make sacrifices for both me and my children because I can't afford it. I don't have cable since it is expensive and I have other priorities, like feeding my children and paying my bills. Where do you draw the line? Movies and pools are obviously quite ok with you, what about skydiving? Should the gov't pay for tandems, I mean, even poor people should be allowed to jump.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[kallend 1,648]

Hjeada

***So why does the government subsidize Mercedes and Maseratis for bailed out bankers, tropical cruises for farmers, and private jets for oil company execs? Could it be that these folks donate to GOP campaign funds?

But taking poor kids to the swimming pool is a luxury. No campaign donations to be had there.

Do you take a mortgage interest deduction? Go to a taxpayer supported school or college? Drive on taxpayer funded roads?

I have a huge problem with the farm subsidies, and the bail outs (if the corporation can't succeed without a bailout, then it should be allowed to fail), no argument there. While I don't take a mortgage deduction myself since I don't own a house, I agree, shouldn't be a deduction. I do drive on roads and my children do go to a taxpayer supported school, however, I pay a considerable amount of tax which goes to fund those so you won't guilt me there. When people ask for direct gov't assistance, it should be for needs, not wants. I regularly make sacrifices for both me and my children because I can't afford it. I don't have cable since it is expensive and I have other priorities, like feeding my children and paying my bills. Where do you draw the line? Movies and pools are obviously quite ok with you, what about skydiving? Should the gov't pay for tandems, I mean, even poor people should be allowed to jump.

I think poor people, like everyone else, should be allowed to take responsibility for where they spend their money. Regardless of the source of the money.

The GOP CLAIMS to believe in personal responsibility but wants to micromanage poor people.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,648]

RonD1120

Why should poor people be rewarded for being poor?

Well, Jesus seemed to think distributing seafood to the poor was OK.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[winsor 187]

kallend

******

Republicans show their mean streak again:

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/chi-missouri-republican-food-stamps-20150405-story.html

If you can't feed them, don't breed them.



Of course, no employed parent EVER lost their job in the great recession.

1) Unemployment insurance is not an 'entitlement.'

2) The first condition of welfare should be that any recipient (to include covered offspring) must be subjected to a reversible sterilization process.

3) If, during one's childbearing years, one cannot afford the reversal process, one sure as hell cannot afford children.

4) If the potential for unfettered reproduction is more important than the check, good for you.

Addressing poverty and overpopulation in a single policy is the way to go. No more 'kids as a cash crop.'

If you love them, spay them.


BSBD,

Winsor

[Driver1 0]

winsor

*********

Republicans show their mean streak again:

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/chi-missouri-republican-food-stamps-20150405-story.html

If you can't feed them, don't breed them.



Of course, no employed parent EVER lost their job in the great recession.

1) Unemployment insurance is not an 'entitlement.'

2) The first condition of welfare should be that any recipient (to include covered offspring) must be subjected to a reversible sterilization process.

3) If, during one's childbearing years, one cannot afford the reversal process, one sure as hell cannot afford children.

4) If the potential for unfettered reproduction is more important than the check, good for you.

Addressing poverty and overpopulation in a single policy is the way to go. No more 'kids as a cash crop.'

If you love them, spay them.


BSBD,

Winsor

Fully agreed. It's fucking ridiculous for a parent to be on welfare AND spew more kids out. It's one of the abuses of the welfare system IMO. You get a certain amount per child.

If a parent needs welfare to make ends meet, then do it. Just don't add more kids to the mix while on welfare. Raise what you already have, and get a job.

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!

[kallend 1,648]

Driver1

Fully agreed. It's fucking ridiculous for a parent to be on welfare AND spew more kids out. It's one of the abuses of the welfare system IMO. You get a certain amount per child.

If a parent needs welfare to make ends meet, then do it. Just don't add more kids to the mix while on welfare. Raise what you already have, and get a job.

Agreed, but lots of previously employed parents lost their jobs in 2008 and needed help. If they now have a minimum wage job they are STILL below the poverty level. Food stamps for Wal-Mart employees is effectively a subsidy for the wealthiest family in the country.

The GOP was happy to bail out the billionaires and is happy to give huge subsidies to farmers and generous tax breaks to homeowners and hedge fund managers, but considers swimming lessons for the kids of poor people to be heinous.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hjeada 0]

kallend

I think poor people, like everyone else, should be allowed to take responsibility for where they spend their money. Regardless of the source of the money.

The GOP CLAIMS to believe in personal responsibility but wants to micromanage poor people.

IMHO, if those on gov't assistance have expendable money for entertainment, then they don't need money from the gov't, and is thus a waste of tax payer dollars, which should be put toward education, roads, the deficit, etc. Giving recipients money with no regulation is nothing more than enabling behavior. In your stance of personal responsibility (which most who are on gov't assistance have no concept of or they wouldn't be on gov't assistance), they could spend that money on hookers and blow, and while you may not have a problem with your tax dollars being spent that way, I sure as hell do. Those of us who earn our own money have earned the right to spend it however we please, those who get mine from the gov't for free should have oversight.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Quote

Those of us who earn our own money have earned the right to spend it however we please, those who get mine from the gov't for free should have oversight.

Fair enough. Would you then be willing to spend $200 of your money to ensure and enforce that $100 of your money is not spent on swimming lessons?

[kallend 1,648]

Hjeada

***I think poor people, like everyone else, should be allowed to take responsibility for where they spend their money. Regardless of the source of the money.

The GOP CLAIMS to believe in personal responsibility but wants to micromanage poor people.

IMHO, if those on gov't assistance have expendable money for entertainment, then they don't need money from the gov't, and is thus a waste of tax payer dollars, which should be put toward education, roads, the deficit, etc. Giving recipients money with no regulation is nothing more than enabling behavior. In your stance of personal responsibility (which most who are on gov't assistance have no concept of or they wouldn't be on gov't assistance), they could spend that money on hookers and blow, and while you may not have a problem with your tax dollars being spent that way, I sure as hell do. Those of us who earn our own money have earned the right to spend it however we please, those who get mine from the gov't for free should have oversight.

You need to pay more attention to facts and less to right wing propaganda.

www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3894

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hjeada 0]

kallend

You need to pay more attention to facts and less to right wing propaganda.

www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3894

And you need to make less assumption about the propaganda I follow, or my political leanings (I don't post nearly enough here for you to have any idea where I fall), especially when 90+% of what you do here is bash the GOP and spew liberal drivel.

From your own link:
"Kansas expects to have lost $2.2 million last year to fraud in the program, down from more than $7 million in 2013, according to O'Donnell."

But hell, it's just shy of $5m in one year...good to know you are in support of tax dollars going to hookers and blow, personal responsibility and all.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Hjeada

***You need to pay more attention to facts and less to right wing propaganda.

www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3894

And you need to make less assumption about the propaganda I follow, or my political leanings (I don't post nearly enough here for you to have any idea where I fall), especially when 90+% of what you do here is bash the GOP and spew liberal drivel.

From your own link:
"Kansas expects to have lost $2.2 million last year to fraud in the program, down from more than $7 million in 2013, according to O'Donnell."

But hell, it's just shy of $5m in one year...good to know you are in support of tax dollars going to hookers and blow, personal responsibility and all.

Except that spending welfare on swimming or a movie is not currently fraud. So that number is useless for the purposes of this discussion.

[billvon 2,434]

>Steak and seafood too? Why shouldn't someone use food stamps to buy seafood for
>their kids?

They can. I saw nothing in the Kansas law that prevents parents from using food stamps to buy seafood or steak for their kids. Were you referring to a different law? Missouri proposed a law that didn't cover fish on foodstamps but I have no idea if this is close to being passed or who proposed it.

But in any case I fully support parents who want to buy seafood for their kids. And even the Missouri law does not prohibit that.

>And banning people from taking their kids swimming or going to a movie? Come on Bill,
>that is just plain mean-spirited.

Where did the bill ban people from taking kids to swimming pools or movies?

[Hjeada 0]

SkyDekker

Except that spending welfare on swimming or a movie is not currently fraud. So that number is useless for the purposes of this discussion.

So you support subsidizing food for those that have money to spend on swimming lessons, movies, whatever non-essential you would like to lay out...but somehow don't have enough money to feed themselves or their children? It's an insane contradiction. That individual has priorities out of line and wants the gov't to give money to them for what they 'can't afford' (food) when they have money for entertainment. If that is ok in your worldview, then it is telling why we have such a dependency on social welfare programs.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[Amazon 7]

Hjeada

***You need to pay more attention to facts and less to right wing propaganda.

www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3894

And you need to make less assumption about the propaganda I follow, or my political leanings (I don't post nearly enough here for you to have any idea where I fall), especially when 90+% of what you do here is bash the GOP and spew liberal drivel.

From your own link:
"Kansas expects to have lost $2.2 million last year to fraud in the program, down from more than $7 million in 2013, according to O'Donnell."

But hell, it's just shy of $5m in one year...good to know you are in support of tax dollars going to hookers and blow, personal responsibility and all.

Sounds like a nice little compassionate conservative sound bite. I guess we can put you down for not being very "progressive" there Bubba????

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Quote

So you support subsidizing food for those that have money to spend on swimming lessons, movies, whatever non-essential you would like to lay out...but somehow don't have enough money to feed themselves or their children?

That's not what I said.

Do you support spending $200 to ensure $100 is not wasted?

Some level of waste is going to happen in every single system. At this point you don't even know what that waste amounts to and what it would cost to reduce the waste.

[Hjeada 0]

I do agree that some level of waste is inherent in any program, it's the nature of the beast when dealing with the gov't. Estimated savings in one state, per the article, are just shy of $5m in one year, seems to lend itself to being more beneficial to apply oversight than to blankly write checks, especially when extrapolated out over multiple years. Should the savings have been $500k, then no, it probably wouldn't make sense at all...$5m is a totally different story.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[Hjeada 0]

Amazon

Sounds like a nice little compassionate conservative sound bite. I guess we can put you down for not being very "progressive" there Bubba????

You can put me down in whatever category you would like, your opinion is meaningless to me. I simply called him out as consistently bashing one party, while virtually blindly supporting the another. You can assume all you like from that.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[Hjeada 0]

Amazon

Sounds like a nice little compassionate conservative sound bite. I guess we can put you down for not being very "progressive" there Bubba????

Btw, the personal attack didn't go unnoticed, really quite sad you aren't capable of having a conversation with someone that doesn't see the world in the same way as you do without taking a shot at them.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bubba

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[Amazon 7]

Hjeada

***
Sounds like a nice little compassionate conservative sound bite. I guess we can put you down for not being very "progressive" there Bubba????

Btw, the personal attack didn't go unnoticed, really quite sad you aren't capable of having a conversation with someone that doesn't see the world in the same way as you do without taking a shot at them.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bubba


QED

[kallend 1,648]

Hjeada

***You need to pay more attention to facts and less to right wing propaganda.

www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3894

And you need to make less assumption about the propaganda I follow, or my political leanings (I don't post nearly enough here for you to have any idea where I fall), especially when 90+% of what you do here is bash the GOP and spew liberal drivel.

From your own link:
"Kansas expects to have lost $2.2 million last year to fraud in the program, down from more than $7 million in 2013, according to O'Donnell."

But hell, it's just shy of $5m in one year...good to know you are in support of tax dollars going to hookers and blow, personal responsibility and all.

Please explain very carefully how these laws will prevent fraud.

Please explain very carefully how these proposed laws will save ANY money for taxpayers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.