47M Americans hit by food stamp cuts starting today. Chicago Jesus rewards his low-information voters. You’d think he could at least come up with some loaves and fishes for them. Genuflect forward!
47M Americans hit by food stamp cuts starting today. Chicago Jesus rewards his low-information voters. You’d think he could at least come up with some loaves and fishes for them. Genuflect forward!
This website uses cookies.
View Comments (55)
Damn, I coulda used that 36 bucks for this too and I missed it. Better hurry if you're out NM way...
http://www.southwestbaconfest.com/
Too bad I don't live there! This sounds right up my alley!
Live Music, Local Breweries, Bacon Eating Contests
I'm sure Hillary will promise to reinstate the stamps, thereby sealing her victory.
All those who where stupid enough to buy the slogan of hope and change, they better rent the move Running Man. That is what is ahead for all those that are on the government tit and food stamps. Stay in line, you eat. Get out of line, you starve. Sadly they have no idea how to make it on their own and what to do to provide for themselves.
Just to remind them. A Country boy will survive.
So would anyone if they bothered to graduate from high school, learn a marketable skill, and not reproduce before age 18 and before marriage. Maybe some old fashioned societal condemnation would be in order. The indiscriminate nonjudgmental leftists and their aversion to objective truth is a huge reason how we got to this point.
That was the beginning of the end. Making it so that getting everything for free was no longer something to be ashamed of, was the start, making it so that getting everything for free is something to be proud of is the goal, which has been reached by some. Now the new goal is to get everyone thinking that way.
Elevate poverty to a noble status?
There is nothing wrong with being poor and dignified while being poor. The problem is being poor and being envious of others and thinking that others that are rich, are rich because they took from them or because they don't share enough. The rich are rich because they inherited it, or because they came up with an idea and with resources, education and luck made it happen, won the money (and invested appropriately), worked the upper mobility ladder or a combination of all/some of the above (and perhaps others possibilities). The poor don't have "rights" to that just because they are poor and the liberals are spreading that lie around.
Being poor is not bad on its own, it is the attitude that one has as one is poor that makes it a bad thing or a noble thing in spite of the lack. I know of a lot of poor people that out class and have sturdier moral backbones than many rich people out there. Being rich is not good on its own, it is the attitude that one has as a person that is rich that makes being rich good or bad. There are a lot of bad rich people out there as well as a lot of bad poor people out there.
There should be no shame in relying in family, friends, community and secular/faith-based charities if one is poor and because of many circumstances it is a situation that not easily solved. There should be shame in relying in government because then you are taking from people that produce without their knowledge nor permission (very close to theft) for the government does not ask us and the government does not make its own money.
All poor though should try to get on upward mobility though, but not all will and in some cases some can't. Being poor is not something that someone should necessarily be proud to be and stay at, but it not something to be ashamed off, but that also depends on the attitude of the person and how they think they are there and what they will do to get out of it.
It seems to be the goal of the left. It makes the proles easier to control when you supply them with all their needs.
And have the power to deny them what they need.
Therein lies the rub.
That, and anyone with the motivation to do for themselves. Maybe not as well as the country boy, due to lack of resources, but still, they will last longer than those who think food comes from the government.
Well maybe if Comrade O wasn't greasing his buddies with green energy loans, and $750,000 web sites that he pays $640,000,000 for (and still dont work) there would be enough tax money so they wouldn't have to cut back on the welfare. That cutback means less milk for the kids in order to still pay for the cigarettes, booze, and dope. Not to mention the cash pissed away by the Getto Rich Obama's on countless lavish vacations for them and their homies.
Not splitting hairs but I thought I skimmed where this was "stimulus" money running out. Remember Pelosi saying how welfare and food stamps help stimulate the economy way back when they were cramming that trillion $ thing through?
Yes, and it stimulated the Obama crony-capitalist economy, but nothing else. You can't take $100 from a working person, pay the government employee to administer it, and hand out the remainder to the poor, and expect to get "100 penney dollars" in benefit. Any time the government gets their hands on money, a large percentage of it disappears before it gets to the end beneficiary, which, once again is why charity/social welfare programs should be handled by churches and volunteer organizations.
I know you know but the government and by extension all of us are going to have to now live with results of a government created boom and bust cycle.
Isn't it great? Like we don't have enough problems. Now we're going to get to listen to 24-7 news stories about how we're going to be starving the poor.
"The poor". When does anyone hold them accountable? How is it they have a claim to my property and labor? Why do only certain people have a right or claim to things that others must pay for? If the poor are owed food, phones, housing, etc., that means others are indebted to the poor. What is the origin of that debt?
We live in a two-class society: we have a provider class and a recipient class. That's it.
Also it is okay to be poor and live day by day and live morally while finding ways to survive. It is not something to be ashamed of. If they want to change that and engage in upward mobility there are ways to do that without feeling that someone else has "too much" and their crap needs to be taken away from them so they can have it instead... that is theft.
That is where education comes in and the willingness to work comes in as well as a moral backbone and proper guidance by parents and mentors. However look all these things are breaking down one by one by liberal agendas. So I can only imagine that the reason we are in debt is because of progressivism and liberalism that actively engages in destroying upward mobility and effective capitalism to help those that want to get out of poverty.
What is the origin of that debt?
I believe it is LBJ. He prety much started the expansion of the welfare state to what it is today. Although, it really goes back to FDR, but at least he made you work for what you got, somewhere along the way, the left decided it was unfair to have to earn what you get.
I get that, PJ. Honestly, I'm trying to drill down to the true origin. FDR, LBJ, and every other progressive president including "W" rammed legislation through to make it legal for the government to confiscate labor and property and give it to people of their choosing. What is the origin of the process of making those laws and how did the state become authorized to oversee the process of creating a condition where an entire swath of society is owed by another?
EDIT: Keynes wrote - I'm paraphrasing - that the trick to making the government meddling in the economy acceptable was to convince enough people that they can still get ahead despite the fact that the game is rigged.
Maybe you can find something here:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/a+Brief+History+of+Welfare+Reform
https://www.boundless.com/political-science/social-policy/the-welfare-state/the-history-of-the-welfare-state/
http://academic.udayton.edu/RACE/04NEEDS/welfare01a.htm
It seems that it started with Bismark.
Agreed. The biggest problem is the left, after all these centuries, still refuses to learn from history. No matter how many times, and how many different ways they try it, they just can't make it work. They still think the problem is they are doing it wrong, but the problem is, they never figure out how to make the money last forever, and get the producers to remain happy providing for those who refuse to contribute.
The modern welfare state did indeed start with Bismark.
I know the questions I'm asking are more philosophical than anything else. They aren't my questions per se. The questions have been asked for a very long time. Plato, Hobbes, and Moore all wrote about the state and it's quixotic quest to end all human suffering. Marx and Engels borrowed heavily from them and later Lenin. Huxley, Orwell, and Zamyatin all warned us of the futility of trying to make the state God.
I'd say the results of trying to put the theories into practice here are miserable failures despite the warnings and dozens of historical examples.
And of course, USSAToday conveniently failed to mention the millions the feds have spent and the months of training for armed DHS agents and their infamous contractors in urban warfare and the plan to "protect" federal buildings across the fruited plain in the wake of these "draconian cuts".
I don't understand why they will let me buy lettuce and broccoli with my EBT card - but not tobacco. They are all GREEN vegetables! And why is it ok to buy fresh grapes from Chile, but not processed grape juice from California? I am soooo confused!!!
Give a man a fish...
$9 dollars per person/month, from a family of four - and the liberals act like the sky is falling! Crap dude, let's cut those food stamps by $100 a month per person, then we can start listening to the whine. Who knows, maybe even some of those fat Welfare Mammy's will go out and get a real job, instead of spending their time sucking off their boyfriends and watching "Price is Right".
36 bucks? Might be time to cut back on the lobster and prime rib. As far as I'm concerned SNAP should pay for basic foodstuffs only.
If I were in charge SNAP would consist of coming down to the local warehouse getting your 5# block of cheese, 20# bag of beans, 20# bag of rice and 5 gallons of milk.
No cash back, no steak, no lobster, no Coke, just staples. I bet that there would be a spike in people getting jobs.
Don't forget the peanut butter. I remember the big cans of peanut butter that came with the cheese when I was a kid. Did I mention having an alcoholic step dad that wasn't worth the paper the food stamps were printed on?
At least I knew enough to be embarassed being seen around those vile stamps.
I remember seeing the people lining up by the railroad tracks downtown on government cheese day. They used to hide their faces when you drove by. The cheese came in plain, brown, boxes that looked like Velveeta boxes.
I remember feeling sorry for the people that had to depend on the government for food. Now, these same people are proud to be getting their stuff free, and they're envied.
What a difference a few decades makes.
A few decades of government sponsored moral decay.
Anything the government gives you, the government can take away.