(09-17-2013 11:52 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 11:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:40 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:39 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:26 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  You don't want to pay taxes. Thus, stop using any service that taxes pay for.

You think you could spend your money better, then fine. Build your own roads and only drive on them.

Who would've guessed that YOU missed the entire point and went above and beyond to cherry pick your way around it. This is about food stamps, I don't like MY hard earned tax payer dollars going to feed the leeches for their entire life either. The system needs to be revamped. Stop missing the point.

Mmm. This is one of those times where people need to learn lessons the hard way. Here's to hoping you lose your job and are unable to find another, thus causing you to be on food stamps.

No one here is objecting to helping people in valid need. We just object to being robbed by lazy baby making welfare queens. There is a VAST difference...and YOU KNOW IT. Stop being hyperbolic and stick to the topic.

The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

Don't forget about all those lazy elderly welfare queens that live on them.

I've said it a million times. This could have all been avoided if we'd picked our own damn cotton. We f**ked up royally and this is the price we're paying for it.

(09-16-2013 01:43 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  How compassionate.

Funny, it tends to be the Christians who want to kick everyone off food stamps and allow them to starve, yet the agnostics and atheists would like to keep social safety nets in place.

Ironic, no?

Not really. We just want the gov't to gtfo of the way and let the chips fall where they will.

mathenis89 appears to be another one of the liberal drama queens that frames everything as 'all or nothing.'

Gosh, we've never seen those types around here before.

(09-17-2013 04:02 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  mathenis89 appears to be another one of the liberal drama queens that frames everything as 'all or nothing.'

Gosh, we've never seen those types around here before.

With the righteous indignation of a spoiled teenager.

(09-17-2013 12:48 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 11:52 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 11:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:40 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:39 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Who would've guessed that YOU missed the entire point and went above and beyond to cherry pick your way around it. This is about food stamps, I don't like MY hard earned tax payer dollars going to feed the leeches for their entire life either. The system needs to be revamped. Stop missing the point.

Mmm. This is one of those times where people need to learn lessons the hard way. Here's to hoping you lose your job and are unable to find another, thus causing you to be on food stamps.

No one here is objecting to helping people in valid need. We just object to being robbed by lazy baby making welfare queens. There is a VAST difference...and YOU KNOW IT. Stop being hyperbolic and stick to the topic.

The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

Don't forget about all those lazy elderly welfare queens that live on them.

Another example of hyperbole by the resident slave.

(09-17-2013 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 11:52 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

How big or small the number is will vary quite a bit depending upon how you define the term "welfare queen." And if arguably the number should be zero, what difference does it make how large it is, as long as it is not zero?

The problem is very simple. Our welfare system is designed to entrap people in it rather than give them support to help them get out. It's not a safety net, it's a spider web. It could be a safety net, and it should be a safety net. Implicit in that definition is that it is designed to get people out of the system and back on their feet as quickly as possible, instead of trapping people there for three generations.

But then again, if people weren't trapped there, they wouldn't be reliable democrat voters, would they?

Exactly. If the Democrats really wanted to end poverty the answers are out there. One of the first would be to install a tax system like HR 25 that would totally untax the poor and put that money back into their pockets to use as they see fit.

I am waiting for the Democrat leadership to offer a single idea that actually gets people off of welfare and makes them productive citizens. I give Bill Clinton credit. He made such an attempt and was making some progress. That of course got erased and I see nothing the Obama administration has done to return to those policies. The fact is...it has gotten worse.

(09-17-2013 04:02 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  mathenis89 appears to be another one of the liberal drama queens that frames everything as 'all or nothing.'

Gosh, we've never seen those types around here before.

It is as if even suggesting that the system be reformed to shut loopholes is some type of right wing conspiracy against poor people. The fact is that conservatives are the MOST supportive of helping the poor. They donate untold millions annually to that cause..even after being stolen from to support a lousy welfare state.

(09-17-2013 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 11:52 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

How big or small the number is will vary quite a bit depending upon how you define the term "welfare queen." And if arguably the number should be zero, what difference does it make how large it is, as long as it is not zero?

The problem is very simple. Our welfare system is designed to entrap people in it rather than give them support to help them get out. It's not a safety net, it's a spider web. It could be a safety net, and it should be a safety net. Implicit in that definition is that it is designed to get people out of the system and back on their feet as quickly as possible, instead of trapping people there for three generations.

But then again, if people weren't trapped there, they wouldn't be reliable democrat voters, would they?

You understand that most college educated individuals tend to vote Democratic, right?

(09-17-2013 04:27 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 11:52 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

How big or small the number is will vary quite a bit depending upon how you define the term "welfare queen." And if arguably the number should be zero, what difference does it make how large it is, as long as it is not zero?

The problem is very simple. Our welfare system is designed to entrap people in it rather than give them support to help them get out. It's not a safety net, it's a spider web. It could be a safety net, and it should be a safety net. Implicit in that definition is that it is designed to get people out of the system and back on their feet as quickly as possible, instead of trapping people there for three generations.

But then again, if people weren't trapped there, they wouldn't be reliable democrat voters, would they?

Exactly. If the Democrats really wanted to end poverty the answers are out there. One of the first would be to install a tax system like HR 25 that would totally untax the poor and put that money back into their pockets to use as they see fit.

I am waiting for the Democrat leadership to offer a single idea that actually gets people off of welfare and makes them productive citizens. I give Bill Clinton credit. He made such an attempt and was making some progress. That of course got erased and I see nothing the Obama administration has done to return to those policies. The fact is...it has gotten worse.

Lowering taxes on the poor would be completely shut down by the Republican House and you know that.

(09-17-2013 06:22 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Lowering taxes on the poor would be completely shut down by the Republican House and you know that.

bull****.

(09-17-2013 06:28 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 06:22 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Lowering taxes on the poor would be completely shut down by the Republican House and you know that.

bull****.

No, here's how it goes down (and has in the recent past).

"Okay, if you want to lower taxes on the poor, you have to lower them for the rich, too, AND cut vital social programs like Medicare."

(09-17-2013 06:21 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 11:52 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

How big or small the number is will vary quite a bit depending upon how you define the term "welfare queen." And if arguably the number should be zero, what difference does it make how large it is, as long as it is not zero?

The problem is very simple. Our welfare system is designed to entrap people in it rather than give them support to help them get out. It's not a safety net, it's a spider web. It could be a safety net, and it should be a safety net. Implicit in that definition is that it is designed to get people out of the system and back on their feet as quickly as possible, instead of trapping people there for three generations.

But then again, if people weren't trapped there, they wouldn't be reliable democrat voters, would they?

You understand that most college educated individuals tend to vote Democratic, right?

So...It is those people that win elections for the Left....Gotcha.

(09-17-2013 06:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 06:21 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 11:52 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

How big or small the number is will vary quite a bit depending upon how you define the term "welfare queen." And if arguably the number should be zero, what difference does it make how large it is, as long as it is not zero?

The problem is very simple. Our welfare system is designed to entrap people in it rather than give them support to help them get out. It's not a safety net, it's a spider web. It could be a safety net, and it should be a safety net. Implicit in that definition is that it is designed to get people out of the system and back on their feet as quickly as possible, instead of trapping people there for three generations.

But then again, if people weren't trapped there, they wouldn't be reliable democrat voters, would they?

You understand that most college educated individuals tend to vote Democratic, right?

So...It is those people that win elections for the Left....Gotcha.

Yes, the educated.

(09-17-2013 06:22 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 04:27 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 11:52 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

How big or small the number is will vary quite a bit depending upon how you define the term "welfare queen." And if arguably the number should be zero, what difference does it make how large it is, as long as it is not zero?

The problem is very simple. Our welfare system is designed to entrap people in it rather than give them support to help them get out. It's not a safety net, it's a spider web. It could be a safety net, and it should be a safety net. Implicit in that definition is that it is designed to get people out of the system and back on their feet as quickly as possible, instead of trapping people there for three generations.

But then again, if people weren't trapped there, they wouldn't be reliable democrat voters, would they?

Exactly. If the Democrats really wanted to end poverty the answers are out there. One of the first would be to install a tax system like HR 25 that would totally untax the poor and put that money back into their pockets to use as they see fit.

I am waiting for the Democrat leadership to offer a single idea that actually gets people off of welfare and makes them productive citizens. I give Bill Clinton credit. He made such an attempt and was making some progress. That of course got erased and I see nothing the Obama administration has done to return to those policies. The fact is...it has gotten worse.

Lowering taxes on the poor would be completely shut down by the Republican House and you know that.

*sigh* the only one that has raised taxes on the poor in recent memory is zerO. And to this ridiculous post in the first place, do tell- how do you lower taxes on people that don't pay taxes anyway? Income taxes, correct?

Or are you referring to the poor that have to foot a tax on their cell phone, cigarettes, gasoline, cable service an that kind of thing?

(09-17-2013 06:36 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 06:22 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 04:27 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 11:52 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

How big or small the number is will vary quite a bit depending upon how you define the term "welfare queen." And if arguably the number should be zero, what difference does it make how large it is, as long as it is not zero?

The problem is very simple. Our welfare system is designed to entrap people in it rather than give them support to help them get out. It's not a safety net, it's a spider web. It could be a safety net, and it should be a safety net. Implicit in that definition is that it is designed to get people out of the system and back on their feet as quickly as possible, instead of trapping people there for three generations.

But then again, if people weren't trapped there, they wouldn't be reliable democrat voters, would they?

Exactly. If the Democrats really wanted to end poverty the answers are out there. One of the first would be to install a tax system like HR 25 that would totally untax the poor and put that money back into their pockets to use as they see fit.

I am waiting for the Democrat leadership to offer a single idea that actually gets people off of welfare and makes them productive citizens. I give Bill Clinton credit. He made such an attempt and was making some progress. That of course got erased and I see nothing the Obama administration has done to return to those policies. The fact is...it has gotten worse.

Lowering taxes on the poor would be completely shut down by the Republican House and you know that.

*sigh* the only one that has raised taxes on the poor in recent memory is zerO. And to this ridiculous post in the first place, do tell- how do you lower taxes on people that don't pay taxes anyway? Income taxes, correct?

Or are you referring to the poor that have to foot a tax on their cell phone, cigarettes, gasoline, cable service an that kind of thing?

I am referring to the tax system that the person I quoted mentioned.

(09-17-2013 06:22 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 04:27 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 11:52 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

How big or small the number is will vary quite a bit depending upon how you define the term "welfare queen." And if arguably the number should be zero, what difference does it make how large it is, as long as it is not zero?

The problem is very simple. Our welfare system is designed to entrap people in it rather than give them support to help them get out. It's not a safety net, it's a spider web. It could be a safety net, and it should be a safety net. Implicit in that definition is that it is designed to get people out of the system and back on their feet as quickly as possible, instead of trapping people there for three generations.

But then again, if people weren't trapped there, they wouldn't be reliable democrat voters, would they?

Exactly. If the Democrats really wanted to end poverty the answers are out there. One of the first would be to install a tax system like HR 25 that would totally untax the poor and put that money back into their pockets to use as they see fit.

I am waiting for the Democrat leadership to offer a single idea that actually gets people off of welfare and makes them productive citizens. I give Bill Clinton credit. He made such an attempt and was making some progress. That of course got erased and I see nothing the Obama administration has done to return to those policies. The fact is...it has gotten worse.

Lowering taxes on the poor would be completely shut down by the Republican House and you know that.

They don't pay net tax now...How are they going to be lowered beyond zero. What I propose is that they don't pay any tax period and their refund comes monthly in the form of a prebate to help with expenses.

Why doesn't the Left support a consumption tax if they are concerned with helping the poor? The answer is...They are not concerned beyond the votes they get for giving free schit away. BTW...Conservatives have no problem with welfare to help those in actual need. They do however have a huge problem with institutionalized welfare. Liberals love both.

(09-17-2013 06:34 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 06:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 06:21 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 11:52 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

How big or small the number is will vary quite a bit depending upon how you define the term "welfare queen." And if arguably the number should be zero, what difference does it make how large it is, as long as it is not zero?

The problem is very simple. Our welfare system is designed to entrap people in it rather than give them support to help them get out. It's not a safety net, it's a spider web. It could be a safety net, and it should be a safety net. Implicit in that definition is that it is designed to get people out of the system and back on their feet as quickly as possible, instead of trapping people there for three generations.

But then again, if people weren't trapped there, they wouldn't be reliable democrat voters, would they?

You understand that most college educated individuals tend to vote Democratic, right?

So...It is those people that win elections for the Left....Gotcha.

Yes, the educated.

The irony of that is choice.