Trump wants to replace SNAP (food stamps) with boxes of nutritious food.
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
Please read the Constitution and see that funding the military is a delegated power and funding freeloaders isn't.
Still twisting yourself like a pretzel, huh?
There is a difference between me and the government. I earn what I have and just like the leeches you support, the government doesn't.
Care to try again, boy?
Text Drivers are Killers
Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
Lincoln?? The super-racist who started a war that killed 500,000 americans?? Who imprisoned thousands of fellow northerners for opposing the war and shut down hundreds of northern newspapers for the same "crime".? That's your hero?
Text Drivers are Killers
Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
Hey einstein. "General Welfare" is a meaningless phrase.
Nomad
Verified User
Only to idiots like you who don't give a fuck about the general welfare of the United States of America.
Fuck you.
Nomad
Verified User
The proof is in the Post, liberal.
We'll start here: Click on that link, read through it, then tell me Peeonthecat didn't misrepresent the article.
Where are your links you soprano singing whore?
How many times must I pound that into your mush filled head?
YOUR job is to shoot the source, not take aim at the messenger. Get off your lazy, perverted, ass and get me my links.
I hope we're clear, this time.
Where are your links you soprano singing whore?
How many times must I pound that into your mush filled head?
YOUR job is to shoot the source, not take aim at the messenger. Get off your lazy, perverted, ass and get me my links.
I hope we're clear, this time.
I just did shoot the source, bitch. Do your own fucking homework, twatwattle. Even though it seems that way most of the time, I ain’t your fucking babysitter.
You're shooting blanks, slut. YOU aren't a source. lol
Now be a good little flag burning eunuchloid and disprove the article.
Sirthinksalot
Verified User
I would also add luxury items like steak, lobster, crab legs etc. I have a friend who works in a grocery store for a not so great salary who routinely sees people use food share to buy expensive items like those. It must be frustrating to see people on government assistance purchase items that she, as a working person can't afford. People buying those things with "food stamps" either don't need that assistance or they bought the cards at 50 cents on the dollar from people who sell the cards to buy cigarettes and booze instead of food for their children.
Absolutely. Able bodied people need to feel that it's better to work than be on welfare. Many people use the system as a temporary way to get by during hard times, and I support that. However, too many view it as a way of life.
One other reform that might be off topic, but there needs to be a strong deterrent to people receiving benefits having more children. If you can't afford to pay for the kids you have, you sure as hell shouldn't be having more.
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
The free food items would be set up at distribution points. All people would just have to go and pick it up.
Ya want free food? Ya just have to go and pick it up.
If recipients are able to get up out of the house to go to grocery stores, then they can just as easily go to the distribution centers.
Ya want free food? Ya just have to go and pick it up.
If recipients are able to get up out of the house to go to grocery stores, then they can just as easily go to the distribution centers.
There is less chance of food stamps being replaced by boxes of food than all of the other claims/attempts to cut spending or eliminate useless programs. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all tried to eliminate unnecessary programs but they all have champions in Congress trying save them.
There was a subsidy for angora goats because mohair was used for military uniforms in WWII. The program was ended in 2001 but came back the next year.
https://www.politico.com/story/2010/06/mohair-subsidies-get-reps-goats-038379
They used to do this years ago. My parents station wagon served as a taxi to haul people (about four families from our congregation at the time) to the distribution point when I was about 6 or 7 until we moved from Lawton.
That's the "etc.". A complete list would be impractical.
I've seen those that claim they can't afford to provide even the basics for themselves and/or their children have enough money to buy things like cigarettes, beer, lottery tickets. Recently, I was in line behind one of these leeches at a convenient store. The leech purchased several packs of cigarettes with cash in one transactions. In a subsequent transaction, she purchased some candy bars, M&Ms, Mountain Dew, and something similar for each of her kids with her using EBT. Sad how she can't feed her own kids but buys them junk yet can afford cigarettes.
As long as a certain ideology believes that despite someone causing their own financial problems it's the taxpayers responsibility to support them, reform won't happen.
Why should taxpayers be forced to support anyone regardless of why they are where they are? If I know someone personally that needs help, I deem it a worthwhile cause, and have the ability to help them, why shouldn't I be able to pick who gets the help? Unlike the politicians that will give away money someone else earned in order to get votes, I don't want anything in return.
Addressing those that have children they already can't afford to support getting more because they had MORE children isn't off topic. It's as much a part of the topic as the woman I saw in the convenient store. Abusing the system is abusing the system. I say have all the children you want as long as you can support them. However, to those women that say what they do with their bodies is their choice, I say if you make the choice, you get the responsibility of the costs associated with it. If one tells me to butt out of the choice as it's none of my business, don't make it my business by demanding I support something you chose to do.