If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Congress is fighting dirty during working people's hour of struggle   (cnn.com) divider line 51
    More: Fail, donna brazile, food stamps, food pantry, syndicated columnist  
•       •       •

754 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Sep 2013 at 8:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-24 08:40:07 AM  
Why do dems and libs want so many folks on food stamps?
 
2013-09-24 08:41:59 AM  

Aristocles: Why do dems and libs want so many folks on food stamps?


Yeah, people having food is bad.  Everything else is you listening to the voices in your head.
 
2013-09-24 08:44:59 AM  
For those unaware, the way food stamps currently work is that you need to either be employed or in job training for 20+ hours a week to continuously receive food stamps (if you don't have a minor child). If you don't qualify, you can only get 3 months worth every 3 years. Governors, however, can ask for a waiver for specific areas because of economic downturns that make becoming employed incredibly difficult; it is a way for the state to recognize and deal with localized economic stagnation. The Cantor proposal eliminates the governors' ability to waive the work/training requirement, specifically focusing the hardship on those in the most troubled areas and weakening the state's ability to deal with their own problems.
 
2013-09-24 08:45:36 AM  

Carn: Aristocles: Why do dems and libs want so many folks on food stamps?

Yeah, people having food is bad.  Everything else is you listening to the voices in your head.


No, people complacent with government handouts is bad. Let's get these people motivated to become productive members of society.
 
2013-09-24 08:48:23 AM  

Aristocles: No, people complacent with government handouts is bad. Let's get these people motivated to become productive members of society.


so....what do you call people who work 2 jobs and still need EBT to get by?
 
2013-09-24 08:48:59 AM  

Aristocles: Carn: Aristocles: Why do dems and libs want so many folks on food stamps?

Yeah, people having food is bad.  Everything else is you listening to the voices in your head.

No, people complacent with government handouts is bad. Let's get these people motivated to become productive members of society.


Which are complacent?  Can you name names?  Or are you just going to say "all of them" so that we can ignore your Randian nonsense?
 
2013-09-24 08:51:42 AM  
Aristocles:
No, people complacent with government handouts is bad. Let's get these people motivated to become productive members of society.

Well, it's a fair point, but after this long in the House, I'm not sure they can be rehabilitated. And we'd have to wait for elections anyway, we can't just cut them off mid-term.
 
2013-09-24 08:54:30 AM  

Carn: Aristocles: Carn: Aristocles: Why do dems and libs want so many folks on food stamps?

Yeah, people having food is bad.  Everything else is you listening to the voices in your head.

No, people complacent with government handouts is bad. Let's get these people motivated to become productive members of society.

Which are complacent?  Can you name names?  Or are you just going to say "all of them" so that we can ignore your Randian nonsense?


I'm talking about people on food stamps. I'm not going to name names, but an in-law of mine had to enroll for food stamps in order to qualify for certain tuition breaks. Her job at Walmart provided just enough income to disqualify her from the assistance, but, if she's already on some sort of govt assistance she gets the tuition break automatically.

But this is just an anecdote. I don't know why you'd ask for anecdotes. It's an undeniable problem.
 
2013-09-24 08:58:58 AM  

Aristocles: Carn: Aristocles: Carn: Aristocles: Why do dems and libs want so many folks on food stamps?

Yeah, people having food is bad.  Everything else is you listening to the voices in your head.

No, people complacent with government handouts is bad. Let's get these people motivated to become productive members of society.

Which are complacent?  Can you name names?  Or are you just going to say "all of them" so that we can ignore your Randian nonsense?

I'm talking about people on food stamps. I'm not going to name names, but an in-law of mine had to enroll for food stamps in order to qualify for certain tuition breaks. Her job at Walmart provided just enough income to disqualify her from the assistance, but, if she's already on some sort of govt assistance she gets the tuition break automatically.

But this is just an anecdote. I don't know why you'd ask for anecdotes. It's an undeniable problem.


He means 'all of them', his nonsensical story aside.
 
2013-09-24 09:00:54 AM  

Aristocles: Carn: Aristocles: Carn: Aristocles: Why do dems and libs want so many folks on food stamps?

Yeah, people having food is bad.  Everything else is you listening to the voices in your head.

No, people complacent with government handouts is bad. Let's get these people motivated to become productive members of society.

Which are complacent?  Can you name names?  Or are you just going to say "all of them" so that we can ignore your Randian nonsense?

I'm talking about people on food stamps. I'm not going to name names, but an in-law of mine had to enroll for food stamps in order to qualify for certain tuition breaks. Her job at Walmart provided just enough income to disqualify her from the assistance, but, if she's already on some sort of govt assistance she gets the tuition break automatically.

But this is just an anecdote. I don't know why you'd ask for anecdotes. It's an undeniable problem.


You just used an example of a family member, who apparently is part of the working poor, as an example against food stamps?  She had to enroll in them to get a tuition break, so in other words she's trying to better herself and presumably become a productive member of society (in your estimation, I guess Walmart workers don't qualify).
 
2013-09-24 09:05:54 AM  
But for some reason, . . .  217 members of the House of Representatives decided to lace up some combat boots with rough, crushing soles to kick and kick again the 48 million Americans who count on food stamps.

=    5% Reduction

Equivalency Donna, you're doing it wrong.
 
2013-09-24 09:06:14 AM  

Carn: Aristocles: Carn: Aristocles: Carn: Aristocles: Why do dems and libs want so many folks on food stamps?

Yeah, people having food is bad.  Everything else is you listening to the voices in your head.

No, people complacent with government handouts is bad. Let's get these people motivated to become productive members of society.

Which are complacent?  Can you name names?  Or are you just going to say "all of them" so that we can ignore your Randian nonsense?

I'm talking about people on food stamps. I'm not going to name names, but an in-law of mine had to enroll for food stamps in order to qualify for certain tuition breaks. Her job at Walmart provided just enough income to disqualify her from the assistance, but, if she's already on some sort of govt assistance she gets the tuition break automatically.

But this is just an anecdote. I don't know why you'd ask for anecdotes. It's an undeniable problem.

You just used an example of a family member, who apparently is part of the working poor, as an example against food stamps?  She had to enroll in them to get a tuition break, so in other words she's trying to better herself and presumably become a productive member of society (in your estimation, I guess Walmart workers don't qualify).


The point is, she's taking advantage of the govt assistance. She doesn't need it, she's getting a fat check from Walmart already. The problem is with the tuition so she's abusing the food stamps program to qualify for assistance.
 
2013-09-24 09:22:03 AM  

Aristocles: Why do dems and libs want so many folks on food stamps?



For three months no less!!!!!
 
2013-09-24 09:22:34 AM  

Aristocles: >fat check

>from Walmart


InigoMontoya.png
 
2013-09-24 09:35:31 AM  

Aristocles: The point is, she's taking advantage of the govt assistance. She doesn't need it, she's getting a fat check from Walmart already. The problem is with the tuition so she's abusing the food stamps program to qualify for assistance.


So... she doesn't mathematically qualify for assistance? She's committing fraud?
 
2013-09-24 09:40:33 AM  

Aristocles: She doesn't need it, she's getting a fat check from Walmart already.


What dimension is this Walmart in? Even store managers at Walmart do not get fat checks. They have some of the worst pay in an already low-paying industry. And, if the check is so "fat," why does she need tuition breaks?

I realize you're a troll, but, come on, troll better. This is just sad.
 
2013-09-24 09:48:42 AM  

ox45tallboy: Aristocles: The point is, she's taking advantage of the govt assistance. She doesn't need it, she's getting a fat check from Walmart already. The problem is with the tuition so she's abusing the food stamps program to qualify for assistance.

So... she doesn't mathematically qualify for assistance? She's committing fraud?


Right, she makes too much to qualify for tuition assistance, however, she does qualify for food stamps. The loop-hole is that any one who's already getting certain government aid will automatically get the tuition assistance. In other words, she doesn't need the food stamps at all, she can afford food just fine.
 
2013-09-24 09:52:52 AM  

DeaH: Aristocles: She doesn't need it, she's getting a fat check from Walmart already.

What dimension is this Walmart in? Even store managers at Walmart do not get fat checks. They have some of the worst pay in an already low-paying industry. And, if the check is so "fat," why does she need tuition breaks?

I realize you're a troll, but, come on, troll better. This is just sad.


You know, not everyone is a left-wing elitist living in the Northeast. My generation is struggling out here. Put yourself in someone else's shoes and maybe you'd see that a managerial job at Walmart is the best some folks can get in this Great Obama Depression. I'd be insulted if your arrogant remark wasn't the result of ignorance.
 
2013-09-24 09:57:10 AM  
The GOP is only doing this because they're horrible people.
 
2013-09-24 09:59:41 AM  

Aristocles: You know, not everyone is a left-wing elitist living in the Northeast. My generation is struggling out here. Put yourself in someone else's shoes and maybe you'd see that a managerial job at Walmart is the best some folks can get in this Great Obama Depression. I'd be insulted if your arrogant remark wasn't the result of ignorance


Damn Obama for signing all those free trade agreements in the 90's and 00's and sending our jobs overseas.  Damn him to hell.
 
2013-09-24 10:03:30 AM  

Aristocles: Right, she makes too much to qualify for tuition assistance, however, she does qualify for food stamps. The loop-hole is that any one who's already getting certain government aid will automatically get the tuition assistance. In other words, she doesn't need the food stamps at all, she can afford food just fine.


So... she doesn't need them, and is not being forced to use them (she can always stick the EBT card on the shelf) but is using a loophole in the program in order to get assistance with her tuition, which she apparently can't afford.

Two things: First, do you believe that everyone who makes her Wal-Mart salary has the same expenses she has, and can afford food as well as her? Or might there be plenty of her co-workers with a disabled spouse or child, or who themselves require expensive medicine in order to maintain that "privilege" of not dying?

Second, aren't you troubled about the fact that an ordinary "Joe job" worker must seek assistance for tuition in order to "better themselves"? Doesn't this show how out-of-reach those bootstraps actually are for most people? Do you believe that it is not in the best interest of the people of the United States (you know, the "general welfare") to offer assistance with (if not free) college and vocational training for its citizens? Won't businesses be better off when they can go somewhere with already-trained workers?
 
2013-09-24 10:07:15 AM  
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the last time SNAP benefits were increased? I tried Google but I couldn't find it. I feel like they haven't gone up at the rate of inflation but I have nothing to base that on.
 
2013-09-24 10:08:35 AM  

sprawl15: For those unaware, the way food stamps currently work is that you need to either be employed or in job training for 20+ hours a week to continuously receive food stamps (if you don't have a minor child). If you don't qualify, you can only get 3 months worth every 3 years. Governors, however, can ask for a waiver for specific areas because of economic downturns that make becoming employed incredibly difficult; it is a way for the state to recognize and deal with localized economic stagnation. The Cantor proposal eliminates the governors' ability to waive the work/training requirement, specifically focusing the hardship on those in the most troubled areas and weakening the state's ability to deal with their own problems.


And, if I remember correctly, it was the governors that asked for that flexibility in the first place
 
2013-09-24 10:11:23 AM  

Aristocles: You know, not everyone is a left-wing elitist living in the Northeast. My generation is struggling out here. Put yourself in someone else's shoes and maybe you'd see that a managerial job at Walmart is the best some folks can get in this Great Obama Depression. I'd be insulted if your arrogant remark wasn't the result of ignorance.


Separate from the fact you think Obama is the one who should bear the label of this "depression" (please tell me how this is his fault when it began before he took office), please explain what he should do to get us out of it. Maybe he could... I don't know... provide assistance with job training such as college and vocational school so that we would have people more qualified for better jobs, and businesses would be more likely to move here?

Maybe he could provide some assistance with food so that people, especially kids, don't go hungry, and can focus in school because their stomachs aren't rumbling?

Maybe he could even help provide some temporary assistance for those laid off from their jobs, maybe call it "unemployment benefits" or something. That way, people would stand less chance of losing their homes they had invested so much in already, and would still be spending money in their local stores for food and sundries, so those places won't go out of business.

If not things like this, then what should he be doing right now? Cancelling all of these programs and lowering taxes on the rich people, then asking them nicely to hire people, when there is no demand for their goods and services because no one has any money?

Please, I would love to hear your ideas for what Obama (well, really Congress, because of the limits of Separation of Powers, but I don't think you understand that) should be doing! Enlighten us with your ideas!
 
2013-09-24 10:11:56 AM  

ginandbacon: Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the last time SNAP benefits were increased?


There's a history here. Very small increases over time. Not sure which of those were standard increases or explicitly raised through legislation, if any.

Link
 
2013-09-24 10:13:14 AM  

ox45tallboy: Aristocles: Right, she makes too much to qualify for tuition assistance, however, she does qualify for food stamps. The loop-hole is that any one who's already getting certain government aid will automatically get the tuition assistance. In other words, she doesn't need the food stamps at all, she can afford food just fine.

So... she doesn't need them, and is not being forced to use them (she can always stick the EBT card on the shelf) but is using a loophole in the program in order to get assistance with her tuition, which she apparently can't afford.

Two things: First, do you believe that everyone who makes her Wal-Mart salary has the same expenses she has, and can afford food as well as her? Or might there be plenty of her co-workers with a disabled spouse or child, or who themselves require expensive medicine in order to maintain that "privilege" of not dying?



I do believe that others in her position may require the assistance, but that's not the case here. If there was a legitimate need, I wouldn't have mentioned her.

Second, aren't you troubled about the fact that an ordinary "Joe job" worker must seek assistance for tuition in order to "better themselves"? Doesn't this show how out-of-reach those bootstraps actually are for most people? Do you believe that it is not in the best interest of the people of the United States (you know, the "general welfare") to offer assistance with (if not free) college and vocational training for its citizens? Won't businesses be better off when they can go somewhere with already-trained workers?

I am a little troubled. I paid for my school doing any work I could find. Around 2009, however, the job marketplace dried up and it was rough getting my MA. The best I could find was working nights at UPS and it took me 4 years to complete what should have been a 2 year program. Since graduating earlier this year, I hear that tuition costs have risen even higher! Why does the cost of tuition keep increasing?

I'll give you a hint: This has nothing to do with employers.
 
2013-09-24 10:15:36 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: ginandbacon: Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the last time SNAP benefits were increased?

There's a history here. Very small increases over time. Not sure which of those were standard increases or explicitly raised through legislation, if any.

Link


Thank you.
 
2013-09-24 10:17:29 AM  

ox45tallboy: Enlighten us with your ideas!


Repeal Obamacare
Get rid of bloated, wasteful govt programs
cut taxes
Don't say things like "you didn't build that" and "I want to spread the wealth around," because this sends a message to employers that there's an anti-capitalist in charge.

heh. BOB is the ACIC.
 
2013-09-24 10:35:40 AM  

ginandbacon: Dusk-You-n-Me: ginandbacon: Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the last time SNAP benefits were increased?

There's a history here. Very small increases over time. Not sure which of those were standard increases or explicitly raised through legislation, if any.

Link

Thank you.


My BF (former worker for social services) said he thinks they haven't gone up at all during this administration and the last time was $2 years ago. If that's the case, they aren't even close to keeping up with inflation. These cuts are going to hit poor families really hard if they get passed.
 
2013-09-24 10:48:36 AM  

Aristocles: Why does the cost of tuition keep increasing?


The financial sector has made it so that college loans are exempt from bankruptcy laws. They can issue a long-term loan to a person that by definition is not well-educated, which is completely guaranteed by the United States government, and receive an EXTRA 25% of the loan amount from the United States Government when the person defaults by continuing to hound them to the grave, even garnishing their Social Security when they retire, and their life insurance when they die!

It is in the best interest of the companies making these loans for them to be as high as possible. This is why you see some Congress critters demanding that grants be reduced, since the workers can take out loans and wind up in wage slavery for the rest of their lives. You also see rising tuition costs as Universities find anything and everything to charge the students for, including such crap as paying Snooki $4000 to come speak.

Perhaps you should take out your anger at the people artificially inflating the cost of tuition, and promoting to-the-death student loan policies, rather than the people actually trying to offer grants to lower-income individuals to get them educated. If you feel that your sister deserves this grant for college, and shouldn't have to apply for food stamps first, perhaps you should look into why this is the case, and be upset at those individuals, rather than at the food stamp program in general.
 
2013-09-24 10:57:21 AM  

Aristocles: Repeal Obamacare


How will this create jobs?

Aristocles: Get rid of bloated, wasteful govt programs


such as?

Aristocles: cut taxes


Which taxes? On who? And how will this create jobs, or otherwise help the economy?

Aristocles: Don't say things like "you didn't build that" and "I want to spread the wealth around," because this sends a message to employers that there's an anti-capitalist in charge.


Perhaps the same thing might be accomplished by certain factions of the news media not taking his statement out of context - do you really think that small business people built the roads and bridges Obama was referring to?

And why do you feel that Obama is an anti-capitalist? What specific action has he taken that is anti-capitalist? What legislation has he proposed that is anti-capitalist? Perhaps the problem is with biased news media outlets who report whatever they want rather than providing accurate information, and not with the President after all?

I honestly wish he were more anti-capitalist. The income and wealth disparity in this country resulting from too little regulation of capitalism is atrocious. I'd be happier with the President if he were closer to the socialist he is portrayed as. Unfortunately, he is not, and his actions to this point have been anything but anti-capitalist.
 
2013-09-24 11:07:47 AM  

Aristocles: government aid will automatically get the tuition assistance.


Tell me more about this tuition assistance thing.  Please.
 
2013-09-24 11:28:25 AM  
OMG...*eye roll*
 
2013-09-24 11:32:58 AM  

Aristocles: ox45tallboy: Enlighten us with your ideas!

Repeal Obamacare
Get rid of bloated, wasteful govt programs
cut taxes
Don't say things like "you didn't build that" and "I want to spread the wealth around," because this sends a message to employers that there's an anti-capitalist in charge.

heh. BOB is the ACIC.


When did BOB get to be a thing? What happened to the Sekret Muslim Usurper? I liked that one.

I gotta ask: what is ACIC? Antagonist of Criminals In Congress? What?
 
2013-09-24 11:37:01 AM  

Aristocles: she qualified for food stamps.


So what's the problem here?
 
2013-09-24 11:44:38 AM  

Aristocles: It's not the government's business to create jobs. But the government shouldn't do things to hurt the the business environment. Because of Obamacare, companies are doing less hiring and they are cutting hours.


Actually, it IS the government's business to foster an environment that helps businesses and individuals do well. That's the whole point of a government. If government didn't do those things, we would pretty much be Somalia.

Aristocles: Well, Obamacare, for one. But that's obvious. And how about the program that establishes those government backed grants?


I'm still not seeing anything that shows Obamacare is costing jobs. As far as those government-backed grants, I can see your point in that it is very wasteful to pay a company an additional 25% of the loan amount to track down those who don't pay back the loan, when that company is using government resources to recover the money!

However, the idea that we shouldn't provide assistance to people who didn't win the genetic lottery and have rich parents that can afford to put them through school does not make for a productive society. You wind up with feudalism when you put those bootstraps out of reach.

Aristocles: Cut taxes across the board for all tax payers (individuals and businesses). This will be more symbolic than anything for, combined with my other suggestions, it will help restore the confidence of would-be investors and job creators.


You do realize that taxes are at historical lows right now, on individuals and businesses? There was plenty of confidence in the economy Post WWII, when taxes were obscene compared to today. This idea that businesses and investors are just not "confident" because taxes are "too high" is simply not credible from a historic standpoint.

Aristocles: True, but he doesn't need to make their jobs easier.


I have no idea what this means, unless you really believe it is the "job" of certain media to take the President's quotes out of context in order to foster discord over his economic plans, instead of examining and reporting on said economic plan directly.

Aristocles: Government take over of auto industry, government take over of health insurance, cap and trade, more interference with student loans, the stimulus, bailouts, etc. BOB is the ACIC because his brand of "capitalism" is actually cronyism. Free market capitalism is the capitalism that can lead a society to prosperity.


Please provide any historical example of when unregulated "free market capitalism" EVER "lead a society to prosperity". While you're looking, I'll show you how most other Western countries (as well as Japan)'s socialized medicine and strict business regulations and reasonable taxes, while allowing for market rewards for innovation, brought them out of their post -WWII depression and made them economically successful.

Government didn't "take over" the auto industry. They invested in it when no one else would. GM still exists because of this, and the country is better off because of it. Obamacare is not the solution that will help us to be more successful as a nation (single payer), but it is still better than what we had before. The country does better when it's citizens are healthy.

Finally, regarding healthcare, doesn't it make sense that investments in individuals will become more prevalent when the risk of bankruptcy due to health care costs is negligible, instead of it being the leading cause of bankruptcy? Think about that. Right now, a person is more likely to declare bankruptcy due to unforeseen illness than because his business failed. Under Obamacare, that's almost never going to happen. Don't you think that reducing those risks will stimulate investments?
 
2013-09-24 11:51:02 AM  

Aristocles: raerae1980: Aristocles: government aid will automatically get the tuition assistance.

Tell me more about this tuition assistance thing.  Please.

It's something that my sister in-law's school will provide to those who meet certain criteria, for example if one's income is below X or if one is already receiving certain government aid. Since my sister in-law's income is greater than X, she took advantage of the "government aid" route because she qualified for food stamps.

In other words, she's using the program, not because she can't afford food, but because being on the govt aid she automatically qualifies for tuition assistance.

I should mention that she does not live in my state and I have no idea what school she's attending. This is my sister in-law, and we're not very close. I only know of her situation because Ms. Aristocles said, the other day, "Aspasia (not her real name) is on food stamps," and then proceeded to explain.


I guess I just don't understand your beef.  If you SiL qualifies for tuition assistance then she doesn't make that much money.  And if she qualifies for food stamps, then she REALLY doesn't make that much.   I tried getting on food stamps while I was in school but didn't qualify b/c I made too much money, even though I made slightly more than minimum wage.  All I'm saying is, if she qualifies then her take-home income must be very low.   Why are you getting  on her case?  It seems like she's trying to better herself.   You are one strange person.
 
2013-09-24 11:51:40 AM  

Aristocles: It's something that my sister in-law's school will provide to those who meet certain criteria, for example if one's income is below X or if one is already receiving certain government aid. Since my sister in-law's income is greater than X, she took advantage of the "government aid" route because she qualified for food stamps.

In other words, she's using the program, not because she can't afford food, but because being on the govt aid she automatically qualifies for tuition assistance.

I should mention that she does not live in my state and I have no idea what school she's attending. This is my sister in-law, and we're not very close. I only know of her situation because Ms. Aristocles said, the other day, "Aspasia (not her real name) is on food stamps," and then proceeded to explain.


So.. I don't get it. Are you against the school providing tuition assistance? Do you think that tuition assistance should only be for those who make less than your sister, or that it shouldn't exist at all?

Do you think she might possibly have additional expenses while attending school, such as books, school supplies, and gas or bus fare, that the food stamps might help defray?

Do you think she should just be happy with her Wal-Mart job, or are you glad that she is trying to do better in life? Do you think it would be possible for her to pay tuition and related expenses on her Wal-Mart salary, especially considering she makes little enough that she qualifies for food stamps?
 
2013-09-24 12:04:15 PM  

Aristocles: Get rid of bloated, wasteful govt programs


The F-35 would be the first thing on the chopping block.

Good luck with that.
 
2013-09-24 12:19:27 PM  
I'm writing this comment here because, thanks to my current test of ignoring individuals and now their quoted replies, I can only see 10 posts in this thread so far.
 
2013-09-24 12:20:11 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Aristocles: Get rid of bloated, wasteful govt programs

The F-35 would be the first thing on the chopping block.

Good luck with that.


No way, man.  The F-35 is to protect freedums.  How does keeping Americans from starving to death protect their freedums?
 
2013-09-24 12:33:41 PM  

Aristocles: I'm merely saying that there are people out there who need the assistance a hell of a lot more than she does. The cost of living where she lives (rural Tennessee) is crazy low so she's renting a single family home with her boyfriend and paying, I believe, something like $300 a month. Sure, the food stamps will save her money, but I thought that this sort of welfare was intended for people who literally could not otherwise pay for food, rent and other essentials.


It sounds like she can't.   Hence why she qualifies.  I mean, she has to submit paperwork showing her income, taxes, etc.   She had to fill out a FAFSA form in order for her to qualify for any type of tuition assistance.    I mean, she has to PROVE she needs assistance.  It seems that she did.  Why are you hating on her?
 
2013-09-24 12:44:27 PM  
Everyone stop feeding the sad troll.  The "my girlfriend says my estranged in-law is on food stamps in aother state at an unknown school that offers a vague food stamps for tuition aid program" should be a dead giveaway that he's full of crap.  Along with all the standard conservative vague rhetoric as solutions with nothing but deflections when asked how they work.  He doesn't put any effort in at all.
 
2013-09-24 12:47:15 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: Everyone stop feeding the sad troll.  The "my girlfriend says my estranged in-law is on food stamps in aother state at an unknown school that offers a vague food stamps for tuition aid program" should be a dead giveaway that he's full of crap.  Along with all the standard conservative vague rhetoric as solutions with nothing but deflections when asked how they work.  He doesn't put any effort in at all.


Of the twelve posts that I observe in this discussion (not including this one), I observe no "trolling" effort.
 
2013-09-24 12:48:36 PM  
There are some truly despicable people in this thread.
 
2013-09-24 12:48:50 PM  
UncomfortableSilence:

I can't help poking the monkey.   I'm sorry.   :(
 
2013-09-24 12:52:27 PM  

Aristocles: However, I do believe that I know how to spend my money better than a third party (such as the govt)


...and you, good sir, have found the ultimate fallacy of "free-market" capitalism and Libertarianism - the failure to realize that humans are selfish and will not undertake tasks for the benefit of others without seeing substantial reward.

In other words, humans are selfish, and will treat each other like crap in order to make a buck, all the while convincing themselves that the other person deserves to be treated poorly and die in poverty, other wise they would have been born rich.

Taxes exist to eliminate the "free riders" - those that receive a public education but don't want to pay for anyone else's; those who think "someone" should incarcerate those trying to steal in order to eat, but won't offer any food themselves. I'm sorry, but if you think public assistance for people to better themselves so that they won't kill you and take your stuff when they are famished is a bad investment, then you really DON'T know how to spend your money better than a 3rd party.

If John Galt could have possibly existed, he would have been killed and his stuff stolen by hungry people. Libertarianism is for those who haven't thought things through to their natural conclusion - those other people are just as selfish as you and will kill you when you have food and won't share. Ask Marie Antoinette.

Aristocles: I'm relatively young (30), and I have a lot of friends struggling right now. It might not all be attributable to Obamacare, however, I get suspicious when the Sherman Williams store that one of my friends works at cuts his hours down to 25/week.


Well, since Obamacare isn't in force yet, do you think that maybe there might be another reason? Like there not being enough work to justify more hours, or the executives believing that everyone else needs to buck up and do his job for the same money?

Aristocles: I know, that's why it's more of a symbolic gesture. I'm not saying it's 100% rational, but if it makes the manager at Sherman Williams feel all warm and fuzzy, he just might give my buddy those 15 hours/week back.


So.... we need to cut all kinds of government assistance for the needy in the hopes that some business people might "feel" like increasing worker hours?

I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. If Sherwin Williams needed another person because they had customers who needed service, then they would hire someone, or give your buddy back his hours. Business people simply do not put people to work just because they have extra money lying around. They put people to work when they have the demand for this labor. It is a fallacy to think otherwise. Lower taxes don't mean more jobs, just more money in the pockets of business owners. Higher demand, however, means more jobs no matter how high taxes are. The only way to create higher demand is to put more money in the pockets of the people who spend it rather than save it - the poor.

Aristocles: But at the same time, the current system is inflating the cost of tuition, which is just another way of putting those bootstraps out of reach. For example, someone on the cusp but just falling short of qualifying for assistance might be able to pay his or her way through school if tuition was just a little bit lower.


On this, we can agree. We need to focus less on college education and more on vocational training, which is far more cost-effective. This in turn would reduce the demand for college, which would reduce its price to adjust for demand. Simple economics.

Aristocles: It means that BOB gives the media (not just FOXNews) plenty of cannon fodder. For example: "under my cap and trade plan, electricity rates will necessarily sky-rocket."


It's going to happen regardless of who is President. It's just the nature of modern journalism media.

Aristocles: I still believe in minimal regulation. But I think a good example is how America flourished during the industrial revolution, without which we would not have available some of the basic commodities we take for granted today.


For one thing, take a look at the tax rate back then. It might surprise you. But also take a look at the lack of regulations, especially in labor, and ask yourself if we should go back to employers locking their workers in, beating them, hiring child laborers when they should be in school, failing to maintain anything remotely close to a safe working environment, etc., and think about the fact that people didn't have a choice back then - they could work in one of these unregulated factories or starve.

Aristocles: IIRC, the head of GM "stepped down" after some harsh words from BOB and then BOB appointed one of his buddies to run the company. That's more than just an investment.


You don't recall correctly.

Aristocles: Of course, but that doesn't mean Obamacare is right solution. The cost of healthcare has been inflated just like the cost of tuition, addressing that problems means telling the government to get out of our lives rather than solidifying it's presence.


Health care is kind of special in that it's not something that a human can live without, and the lack of regulation (the ability for insurers to toss clients when they get sick, for instance) means this is something that shouldn't be subject to market forces. Do you want to be in a position where someone who answers to the shareholders makes the decision on whether to approve your child's leukemia treatment? Someone who has the choice of a fat bonus or pink slip depending on how much money they are able to save the company by denying life-saving treatment to people?

Once again, we're back to the inherent flaws of unregulated "free-market capitalism".

Aristocles: /btw, thanks for not making a comment about me being a "troll"


If you will post rationally as you have been in this thread, instead of looking to generate reactions, you will likely get plenty of people who will respond in kind (i.e., rationally). I post my share of unpopular opinions. but I try to treat others with respect, and not post in a manner that's going to generate irrational responses. I've found that talking to someone I disagree with in a rational manner is a much more fun way to spend time on the Internet than posting things intended to inflame others and generate namecalling and flamewars. I learn a lot by talking to those I disagree with.
 
2013-09-24 12:57:02 PM  

raerae1980: UncomfortableSilence:

I can't help poking the monkey.   I'm sorry.   :(


The more we poke the monkey the more poo-flinging he does.  All that does is leave us is covered in poo. It's ok, I took the bait for a while before giving up.
 
2013-09-24 01:04:26 PM  

Aristocles: I thought that this sort of welfare was intended for people who literally could not otherwise pay for food, rent and other essentials.


Yes, to a certain degree, there are indigent people who simply CAN'T work. But more than that, there are people like your sister who want to better themselves and not be on public assistance. It sounds like she is using the system exactly as intended - to provide bootstraps for people to pull themselves up with. I hope she does well and gets a better job, and then pays taxes to provide this assistance to others in the future.
 
2013-09-24 01:20:17 PM  
Require corporations to pay a living wage and Food Stamps will go away.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report