Food stamps no more.

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

76% of SNAP benefits go towards households with children, 16% go to households with disabled persons, and 9% go to households with senior citizens.

******* lazy sumbitches! Let's make America great again, and nothing say greatness like starving children! Maybe Sally Struthers could do commercials from the south side of Oklahoma City.

 

[NikatKimber]

76% of SNAP benefits go towards households with children, 16% go to households with disabled persons, and 9% go to households with senior citizens.

******* lazy sumbitches! Let's make America great again, and nothing say greatness like starving children! Maybe Sally Struthers could do commercials from the south side of Oklahoma City.

So those of us who work for a living, and pay our taxes, and provide for ourselves are lazy? Because we don't want to pay - under threat of force - for others' bills?

 

[TedKennedy]

76% of SNAP benefits go towards households with children, 16% go to households with disabled persons, and 9% go to households with senior citizens.

******* lazy sumbitches! Let's make America great again, and nothing say greatness like starving children! Maybe Sally Struthers could do commercials from the south side of Oklahoma City.

At 10:00AM this morning (on break from work), I stood in line at Las Americas as a 30something senorita attempted to buy a cart full of groceries with her EBT card. Several items were taken out until requirements for acceptability were fulfilled. Case or two of Ramen noodles, some bananas, several packages of cookies, candy, etc...once that was "paid" for, she purchased several other items with cash, including a dozen roses...she pulled cards and cash from designer wallet, which had been stored in designer purse.
Now, I don't doubt that this woman was feeding her kids with groceries "purchased" with her EBT card, but my question is this: I never saw this woman before, and I dang sure didn't get her pregnant, so why should I be responsible for feeding her kids?

Give me a break with the starving children crap. We have a system that promotes laziness and abuse, and provides comfort for those who choose, yes choose not to take responsibility for themselves or their kids. There would be fewer hungry kids if we didn't make "assistance" a lifestyle choice.

 

[Eagle Eye]

At 10:00AM this morning (on break from work), I stood in line at Las Americas as a 30something senorita attempted to buy a cart full of groceries with her EBT card. Several items were taken out until requirements for acceptability were fulfilled. Case or two of Ramen noodles, some bananas, several packages of cookies, candy, etc...once that was "paid" for, she purchased several other items with cash, including a dozen roses...she pulled cards and cash from designer wallet, which had been stored in designer purse.
Now, I don't doubt that this woman was feeding her kids with groceries "purchased" with her EBT card, but my question is this: I never saw this woman before, and I dang sure didn't get her pregnant, so why should I be responsible for feeding her kids?

Give me a break with the starving children crap. We have a system that promotes laziness and abuse, and provides comfort for those who choose, yes choose not to take responsibility for themselves or their kids. There would be fewer hungry kids if we didn't make "assistance" a lifestyle choice.

There would also be fewer kids if teenagers were educated about sex and informed that abstinence is not an effective birth control (since next to no teenagers practice abstinence). Or if use of condoms was not condemned by religion (looking a the catholics here). Or if other contraceptive were made available without a doctors prescription.

 

[TedKennedy]

There would also be fewer kids if teenagers were educated about sex and informed that abstinence is not an effective birth control (since next to no teenagers practice abstinence). Or if use of condoms was not condemned by religion (looking a the catholics here). Or if other contraceptive were made available without a doctors prescription.

This is true, and I would refer you to the "Sodomy" thread. There are other choices.

 

[SlugSlinger]

There would be fewer kids if these unwed mothers weren't paid to produce them!

Oh, and with the internet today, these kids probably know more about sex than you do. We aren't living in the dark ages any longer.

There would also be fewer kids if teenagers were educated about sex and informed that abstinence is not an effective birth control (since next to no teenagers practice abstinence). Or if use of condoms was not condemned by religion (looking a the catholics here). Or if other contraceptive were made available without a doctors prescription.

 

[Gomer pyle]

That's just to damn bad! Maybe some of them will get off the corner with their signs and get a job or maybe not as long as the stupid people still hand them the reason to be there! Guess for the bums it beats working!





"Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

 

[CharlieMurphy]

Now I am all for personal responsibility and I pay far more in taxes than I think I should.

That said, why are we looking to cut these programs before others? Sure there is a lot of waste that needs to be fixed but I would much rather see that money go towards helping the needed rather than towards another multi billion dollar military program that gets scrapped in the end anyway. Or how about cutting research on lesbian squirrels or similar **** and trying to feed a hungry baby. Or maybe we should let the non violent offenders that we spend billions to not only feed but house and use that money.

Point being that there are plenty of other places to cut costs before going to the poor. I would much rather see my tax dollars go to help other ordinary people than into the pocket of some billionaire. Why aren't we looking at the people who can stomach the cut back before we look at those who can't.

Priorities are all screwed up. People want to spend more on the military even though we spend more than most of the world combined. It would take a small portion to give proper care to our vets but that is not their priority.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." Yeah right.

Or for the Christians out there, "what you do to the least among you, you do unto me."

 

[TedKennedy]

Now I am all for personal responsibility and I pay far more in taxes than I think I should.

That said, why are we looking to cut these programs before others? Sure there is a lot of waste that needs to be fixed but I would much rather see that money go towards helping the needed rather than towards another multi billion dollar military program that gets scrapped in the end anyway. Or how about cutting research on lesbian squirrels or similar **** and trying to feed a hungry baby. Or maybe we should let the non violent offenders that we spend billions to not only feed but house and use that money.

Point being that there are plenty of other places to cut costs before going to the poor. I would much rather see my tax dollars go to help other ordinary people than into the pocket of some billionaire. Why aren't we looking at the people who can stomach the cut back before we look at those who can't.

Priorities are all screwed up. People want to spend more on the military even though we spend more than most of the world combined. It would take a small portion to give proper care to our vets but that is not their priority.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." Yeah right.

Or for the Christians out there, "what you do to the least among you, you do unto me."

No argument here, but I forcing people to give up part of their paycheck through intimidation is against the law for most of us.

 

[tntrex]

Now I am all for personal responsibility and I pay far more in taxes than I think I should.

That said, why are we looking to cut these programs before others? Sure there is a lot of waste that needs to be fixed but I would much rather see that money go towards helping the needed rather than towards another multi billion dollar military program that gets scrapped in the end anyway. Or how about cutting research on lesbian squirrels or similar **** and trying to feed a hungry baby. Or maybe we should let the non violent offenders that we spend billions to not only feed but house and use that money.

Point being that there are plenty of other places to cut costs before going to the poor. I would much rather see my tax dollars go to help other ordinary people than into the pocket of some billionaire. Why aren't we looking at the people who can stomach the cut back before we look at those who can't.

Priorities are all screwed up. People want to spend more on the military even though we spend more than most of the world combined. It would take a small portion to give proper care to our vets but that is not their priority.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." Yeah right.

Or for the Christians out there, "what you do to the least among you, you do unto me."

I talk crap on here a bit but i honestly feel about how you do. I dont mind my taxes help paying for the food stamps. There is a lot worse the gov is doing you are correct. But it stings when you witness the audacity and the just dont give a fuque some of these people abusing the system have.