The Mean Party

[kallend 1,635]

billvon

>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?

According to the Chicago Tribune: "Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood".

According to the Washington Post: "Kansas wants to ban welfare recipients from seeing movies, going swimming on government’s dime"

Now, I have no personal knowledge of these proposed laws, but both papers are generally reliable, and the Tribune is rather right-leaning.

...

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

[masterrig 1]

grimmie

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-big-socialist-government-not-so-bad-when-that-farm-subsidy-check-bears-your-name/

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/republicans-pass-bloated-socialist-monstrosity.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52116177/t/farm-subsidies-loving-congressman-wants-cut-food-stamps/#.VSVJd_nF8uQ

Thank you for supplying that information and for the time it took you.


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

wolfriverjoe

******I'm more worried about the billions we waste on defense spending, the socialists farmers, the oil industry and foreign aid.

Socialist farmers? You lost me with that one.
You do like to eat... don't you?


Chuck

You are aware of how messed up the farm subsidy program is, right?

This is the New York Times. "Liberal Press" to be sure, but respected journalism. Search "Farm subsidy abuse" and you'll find a ton of information. Some from good sources, some from questionable ones.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/business/richer-farmers-bigger-subsidies.html?_r=0

Thank you for that! Now, I understand why farmers really wanted the new 'Farm Bill'. Enlightening!


Chuck

[Coreeece 2]

Jeeze...

No Steak!
No Seafood!
No Movies!
No Swimming!
No kids!

If I wanted to take away every "non-essential" freedom from someone, you'd think it would cost me more than just a measly few hundred extra dollars a month...

I'm surprised some haven't tried dictating where these people should live. "How dare they spend $500/mth for an apartment with a fitness center - that's just irresponsible! They belong in the slums - $350 tops...

That's just mean...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[wmw999 2,126]

Actually the predecessor program to Food Stamps allocated surplus foodstuffs to qualified people. Of course, that didn't do much for nutrition, since it was always processed cheese, corn, rice, beans. Veggies almost never were, and it sucked if you suffered from allergies

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 0]

masterrig

Seems to me, anyone spending tax payer's dollars, needs to be accountable. I've seen people on food stamps give their change to their 'significant other' waiting on the other end of the check-out. He I turn goes into the store and buys a six-pack of his favorite brew. What's wrong with that picture. Chuck

You sure about that? These days, most states use debit cards for their SNAP benefits programs, meaning there's no paper stamps, thus no cash "change". From a quick Google search, it appears that Texas is one of them? Clarify?

[masterrig 1]

Andy9o8

***Seems to me, anyone spending tax payer's dollars, needs to be accountable. I've seen people on food stamps give their change to their 'significant other' waiting on the other end of the check-out. He I turn goes into the store and buys a six-pack of his favorite brew. What's wrong with that picture. Chuck

You sure about that? These days, most states use debit cards for their SNAP benefits programs, meaning there's no paper stamps, thus no cash "change". From a quick Google search, it appears that Texas is one of them? Clarify?

True. The SNAP cards have replaced the paper. I was pointing-out something I've seen in the past as an example of how things can be gotten around and there is always someone who will find a way around the 'system'. It appears that wasn't a good example.


Chuck

[kallend 1,635]

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.

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 crickets are loud today.

...

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

[Amazon 7]

masterrig

******Seems to me, anyone spending tax payer's dollars, needs to be accountable. I've seen people on food stamps give their change to their 'significant other' waiting on the other end of the check-out. He I turn goes into the store and buys a six-pack of his favorite brew. What's wrong with that picture. Chuck

You sure about that? These days, most states use debit cards for their SNAP benefits programs, meaning there's no paper stamps, thus no cash "change". From a quick Google search, it appears that Texas is one of them? Clarify?

True. The SNAP cards have replaced the paper. I was pointing-out something I've seen in the past as an example of how things can be gotten around and there is always someone who will find a way around the 'system'. It appears that wasn't a good example.


Chuck

As much as I believe in personal responsibility and wish we did not need these programs.... that is pie in the sky.

I would rather feed and make sure the brats those people are having are at least fed and educated so that next generation has a chance to succeed in our country. Having to live with just more and more under-nourished people whose brains will never develop beyond the level of ignorant idiot... is not something we as a nation need to strive for.
On the flip side.... paying hundreds of millionaires.... BILLIONS of dollars to not grow food is just GFS.

I do believe farm subsidies were originally designed for small family farms. Those days in the farm subsidy programs are long gone.... now it is just corporate welfare for the rich and powerful. The program needs to be euthanizedt like the deformed offspring it has become. As a rancher you know what I am talking about.

[masterrig 1]

Amazon

*********Seems to me, anyone spending tax payer's dollars, needs to be accountable. I've seen people on food stamps give their change to their 'significant other' waiting on the other end of the check-out. He I turn goes into the store and buys a six-pack of his favorite brew. What's wrong with that picture. Chuck

You sure about that? These days, most states use debit cards for their SNAP benefits programs, meaning there's no paper stamps, thus no cash "change". From a quick Google search, it appears that Texas is one of them? Clarify?

True. The SNAP cards have replaced the paper. I was pointing-out something I've seen in the past as an example of how things can be gotten around and there is always someone who will find a way around the 'system'. It appears that wasn't a good example.


Chuck

As much as I believe in personal responsibility and wish we did not need these programs.... that is pie in the sky.

I would rather feed and make sure the brats those people are having are at least fed and educated so that next generation has a chance to succeed in our country. Having to live with just more and more under-nourished people whose brains will never develop beyond the level of ignorant idiot... is not something we as a nation need to strive for.
On the flip side.... paying hundreds of millionaires.... BILLIONS of dollars to not grow food is just GFS.

I do believe farm subsidies were originally designed for small family farms. Those days in the farm subsidy programs are long gone.... now it is just corporate welfare for the rich and powerful. The program needs to be euthanizedt like the deformed offspring it has become. As a rancher you know what I am talking about.

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you. I believe these programs definitely need some serious work done to them. Whatever is needed to clean it up. The mega-Ag business has taken-over and is squeezing-out the family farms and ranches. They have used the system to make themselves obscenely rich and the politicians are helping them every way they can. I wholeheartedly agree with you in regard to seeing to it the poor kids get taken care of. They didn't ask to be brought into this world as a means of profit for their parents or for any other reason but they do deserve a chance. The present system stinks! Also, I don't like the new farm bill. There are too many flaws in it and the usual loopholes.


Chuck

[Hjeada 0]

kallend

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 crickets are loud today.

Please show me, very carefully, where I stated that it would prevent fraud. I simply stated that I felt oversight when tax payer dollars are directly given is a good idea. While your at it, please tell me how spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea. Do you enjoy making arrogant and condescending posts?

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[billvon 2,405]

>According to the Chicago Tribune: "Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp
>recipients from buying steak and seafood".

That is a misleading statement. Nowhere does it say they are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood. It does say they are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood with SNAP funds. And those two things are very, very different.

>According to the Washington Post: "Kansas wants to ban welfare recipients from seeing
>movies, going swimming on government’s dime"

That's more accurate. Yes, Kansas is trying to prevent government subsidization of movie attendance. Good goal. You can, of course, still go to a movie - but the government might not pay for it. You might have to go to the library and read a book, which the government WILL pay for. (o the horror)

[kallend 1,635]

Hjeada

***
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 crickets are loud today.

Please show me, very carefully, where I stated that it would prevent fraud. I simply stated that I felt oversight when tax payer dollars are directly given is a good idea. While your at it, please tell me how spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea. Do you enjoy making arrogant and condescending posts?

Oh, so your comments about fraud were simply meant as distractions from the issue under discussion. Got it.

There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever that any of these mean proposals will save any taxpayer money at all, and policing them will actually COST taxpayers money.

So it really is all about being mean.

...

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

[Hjeada 0]

kallend

******
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 crickets are loud today.

Please show me, very carefully, where I stated that it would prevent fraud. I simply stated that I felt oversight when tax payer dollars are directly given is a good idea. While your at it, please tell me how spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea. Do you enjoy making arrogant and condescending posts?

Oh, so your comments about fraud were simply meant as distractions from the issue under discussion. Got it.

There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever that any of these mean proposals will save any taxpayer money at all, and policing them will actually COST taxpayers money.

So it really is all about being mean.

Again, please show me, very carefully, where I made any statement about preventing fraud...or are your assumptions wrong again? If you honestly think personal responsibility is the best approach, and those on the gov't dime should be able to spend money on whatever they please, then you need to re-evaluate your comments about Mercedes and Maseratis . You seem to have a problem when corporations receive gov't money and spend it how they please, but when individuals get gov't money, they can do whatever the hell they want, hypocritical for sure.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[kallend 1,635]

Hjeada

*********
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 crickets are loud today.

Please show me, very carefully, where I stated that it would prevent fraud. I simply stated that I felt oversight when tax payer dollars are directly given is a good idea. While your at it, please tell me how spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea. Do you enjoy making arrogant and condescending posts?

Oh, so your comments about fraud were simply meant as distractions from the issue under discussion. Got it.

There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever that any of these mean proposals will save any taxpayer money at all, and policing them will actually COST taxpayers money.

So it really is all about being mean.

Again, please show me, very carefully, where I made any statement about preventing fraud..

Oh, so your comment about fraud (post #40) was simply meant as distraction from the issue under discussion. Got it.

...

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

[billvon 2,405]

>Oh, so your comment about fraud (post #40) was simply meant as distraction from
>the issue under discussion.

The word "fraud" came from a link in your post. Not his.

You do know what a quote is, right?

[kallend 1,635]

billvon

>Oh, so your comment about fraud (post #40) was simply meant as distraction from
>the issue under discussion.

The word "fraud" came from a link in your post. Not his.

You do know what a quote is, right?

It was very specifically cut from the article and pasted into post#40. Perfectly fair to call it a deliberate comment.

...

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

[billvon 2,405]

>It was very specifically cut from the article and pasted into post#40. Perfectly fair to
>call it a deliberate comment.

Uh - OK.

So you really think "spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea" as you posted in post #63?

[kallend 1,635]

billvon

>It was very specifically cut from the article and pasted into post#40. Perfectly fair to
>call it a deliberate comment.

Uh - OK.

So you really think "spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea" as you posted in post #63?

Once my taxes have been paid, they no longer belong to me and I can't specify how the government uses them.

Similarly, once the dollars have been given out to the recipient, they no longer belong to the government.

...

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

[Hjeada 0]

kallend

***>It was very specifically cut from the article and pasted into post#40. Perfectly fair to
>call it a deliberate comment.

Uh - OK.

So you really think "spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea" as you posted in post #63?

Once my taxes have been paid, they no longer belong to me and I can't specify how the government uses them.

Similarly, once the dollars have been given out to the recipient, they no longer belong to the government.

So you have no problem with the banker bail outs, or how they bankers spent those funds. Got it. Care to recant your statements about gov't bailing out corporations, or how the bonuses of those executives were spent?

Personal responsibility without accountability is never a good proposition.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[billvon 2,405]

>Once my taxes have been paid, they no longer belong to me and I can't specify how
>the government uses them.

OK, so you do think that spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea. Sorry, I disagree.

[kallend 1,635]

billvon

>Once my taxes have been paid, they no longer belong to me and I can't specify how
>the government uses them.

OK, so you do think that spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea. Sorry, I disagree.

I don't think it a good idea, but I don't see that policing it is either a good idea or a cost effective use of resources.

...

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

[winsor 186]

billvon

>Once my taxes have been paid, they no longer belong to me and I can't specify how
>the government uses them.

OK, so you do think that spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea. Sorry, I disagree.

Hey, it works for the Secret Service. What's with the double standard?

[masterrig 1]

billvon

>Once my taxes have been paid, they no longer belong to me and I can't specify how
>the government uses them.

OK, so you do think that spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea. Sorry, I disagree.

I don't see a problem with people or businesses who receive government money being held accountable for how they spend that money. Those receiving that money expects if not demands accountability and transparency of our government so why shouldn't they have to do the same thing. I really cannot accept the idea that it costs more to police recipients of government money, either. I think that is a cheap excuse to not have to do it.


Chuck

[kallend 1,635]

Hjeada

******>It was very specifically cut from the article and pasted into post#40. Perfectly fair to
>call it a deliberate comment.

Uh - OK.

So you really think "spending tax payer dollars on hookers and blow is a good idea" as you posted in post #63?

Once my taxes have been paid, they no longer belong to me and I can't specify how the government uses them.

Similarly, once the dollars have been given out to the recipient, they no longer belong to the government.

So you have no problem with the banker bail outs, or how they bankers spent those funds.

Well, the POINT is that we did bail out the bank execs and we didn't tell them that they couldn't buy luxury cars or yachts.

So what we see here is a clear double standard. Different rules for wealthy campaign donors than for the poor and indigent.

...

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