After Hours

General discussion


Please Don't Feed the Wildlife

By maxwell edison ·
Tags: Off Topic
Any Park Ranger will tell us to refrain from feeding the wildlife, lest they become dependent on the handouts.

Food Stamps in America are being handed out at record levels.

I guess people aren't as smart (or as important) as wildlife.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Thats very sad

by AV . In reply to Talk about your false dic ...

Its a shame that neither of the parents thought about the cost of having children. Honestly, why should that be my responsibility? I don't get that part. There are a lot of sad stories in the world and maybe this one falls into the needy category, but if you can't afford to raise a family, why do it? So, the rest of us bear the burden of it through our tax dollars? It just isn't fair.

I take care of my life and my familie's life, why can't other people do the same?


Collapse -

Nick - You're all over the place

by maxwell edison In reply to Talk about your false dic ...

In the discussion, Should Obama be Reelected, you were, pretty much, coming across as an advocate for third-party voting because both parties are out of control. You said that the government spent its money on the wrong things, should focus on infrastructure and that sort of thing. You called Obama (and Romney) a proven liar.

And now, you support Obama (the proven liar) and his increased (or continued) federal government spending to give food stamps to 48 million Americans, who would, according to you, presumably all die, or otherwise suffer needlessly, without them.

But you do play the "class envy" card, or "class demonizaton" card pretty well - and pretty often - which was (and is) evidenced by your smarmy criticism of Romney and how he came to earn (or otherwise obtain) his wealth. You can do that as well as any Democrat!

Nick "assumes" that these 48 million people "need" food stamps. He wonders what kind of country we've become when 48 million people "need" food assistance. I wonder which orifice he pulled the "need" assertion out from. Just because they're offered, and just because the offer is accepted, it doesn't automatically create a "need". Nick might make the assertion, but it doesn't make it true.

In the sentiment of, "Build it and they will come", we can also conclude, "Hand out freebies, and they will take them."

It's also painfully obvious that Nick neither understands, nor recognizes the ideology behind, the growth of the food stamp program. Intended as a safety net in the 1930s (and as a means to distribute free food commodities more effectively), it's become an intergenerational dependency program - and vote buying ploy; vote for the person who will give me more free stuff: phones, food stamps, rent subsidies, whatever; sell your vote to the highest bidder. And Nick supports such a thing.

The Food Stamp Program, which was started in the late 1930s, provided the "safety net" of which many people (including Nick) speak, and quite frankly, regardless of my libertarian views, I'd be willing to compromise and allow the federal government to provide such a "safety net" . But President Johnson expanded it in 1964, along with myriad other government assistance programs - all under the guise of the War on Poverty", and suddenly the percentage of people living under the poverty threshold started to increase, where it had been decreasing every decade since the Civil War (with the exception of the 1930s). But no, when people like Nick rally in favor of 48 million people receiving intergenerational dependency causing federal government assistance - which is actually harmful to both families and the country in the long run - all in the name of providing a "safety net", I can't help but think that Nick is either sadly misguided or terribly misinformed by calling it all a "safety net".

When 48 million Americans are occupying what used to be a "safety net", over and above all the other federal "safety nets" being advanced and supported, only a fool wouldn't recognize that it will all collapse under the weight of its own obligations.

By the way, on your "waiting" for my Advertising Food Stamps in Mexico" proof, you never asked me for it. Robo_Dev did - as an answer to my request for him to provide proof for his assertions. In essence, he answered a question with a question, thereby evading my original question, which I do not allow someone to get away with. So you can wait until **** freezes over, or until Robo_Dev provides the proof that I originally asked for. (**** freezing over might come first.) Or, you could just research it yourself - and make sure you go to the Government Web site that lists all the government benefits made available to immigrants of all flavors, not just those from Mexico!

P.S. Nick said:

"The food stamp program is a symptom, Max. Until you stop spouting talking points about stereotypes and address the reason the program is even necessary, any complaint you may have about the size of the program is, at best, disingenuous."

Who in the **** is stereotyping people, Nick? Not me. Others might use the word, "freeloaders", or some other pejorative, but I don't. I focus on the role of government and the merits of the program itself. I focus on how the federal government programs have come to be vote-buying vehicles. You, Nick, are the one throwing around stereotypes - and being disingenuous (or misinformed) in the process.

But I do agree that the food stamp program is a symptom - a symptom of out of control federal government; a symptom of intergenerational dependency causing federal programs; and a symptom of a federal government that is bankrupting our country, both fiscally and morally.

Collapse -

Its a shame that neither of them thought about the cost of having children

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Talk about your false dic ...

Right. Ok. And the nation has no vested interest in children being born, right? Coz, you can just replace the citizens with H1Bs, LOL.
Where the fluck did you store your brain, AV?
Ok, first of all; let's say you're entitled to say where the nation spends your money. It's a long shot, but sure, OK.

Well, the Democrats have decided to put *their* tax money on keeping the poverty below riot level.
That then is *their* decision, with *their* money, and you should stop flucking whining about it.
You want to spend on something else than war and subsidies for megacorps? Stop voting Republican, simple as that.

Collapse -

On being all over the place, Max

by NickNielsen In reply to Talk about your false dic ...

First, you make a false assumption. My wanting to reduce the power of the two dominant parties does not preclude my favoring current government programs. Nor does my favoring a program mean I think there is nothing wrong with that program..

Second, where do I even mention Romney (except once, obliquely) or criticize how he made his money (at all)?

Third, you've already pointed out the history of the modern food stamp program, yet you lead with Obama as the 'owner' of that spending, adding the federal government as an afterthought. There have been no substantial changes to the program since the '90s, other than the number of participants. Shouldn't that be Clinton's spending? Or, given the root causes for the current levels of government spending, GWB's? Or, given the history you present, Johnson's? Or Nixon's? Or Reagan's? Or even Eisenhower's, Truman's, or FDR's?

And the minute you start talking about "intergenerational dependency", you are, intentionally or otherwise, stereotyping in the same manner as those who use less subtle terms.

AV, the wealthy may not owe anything to the rest of us as individuals, but they owe everything to the country that made it possible for them to become wealthy in the first place. That they think they are should have their wealth without having to contribute to American society is no less an entitlement mentality than that displayed by the Obamaphone...person.

Collapse -


by AV . In reply to Talk about your false dic ...

What I'm talking about is when you have people that are already on welfare programs and they continue having more children they can't support. People like that have made a lifestyle of living off entitlement programs and they never get off of it. Welfare is supposed to be a helping hand, not a lifestyle.

This lifestyle is particularly rampant in our inner cities. Mostly single mothers and multiple fathers that are absent and do not support their children. In many cases they continue to have children so they get more government money. It isn't as if the children benefit from the welfare, they don't. The kids go without and the mother takes the money and spends it elsewhere. The government enables this lifestyle by just throwing money at it without any strings attached, such as making them work for it in some capacity or mandating some kind of job training so the person can eventually get off the system and support themselves.

Some states, like NJ, have workfare instead of welfare and it has been somewhat successful in preventing people from using the system as a permanent source of income.

Maintaining the poverty level with welfare programs for so many people is not an answer. The answer is growing the economy and providing good paying jobs for anyone that wants to work or even those that don't. It comes back to personal responsibility. The Republicans want to grow the economy and provide an atmosphere for business that will be attractive for investment. If we had a robust economy, people would be able to find decent paying jobs to support themselves. The Dems don't seem to have an answer for how to create a robust economy.


Collapse -

"People like that have made a lifestyle of living off entitlement programs"

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Talk about your false dic ...


Are you aware of how the human reproductive cycle works?
Did you know that accidents happen? Did you know that most people, even pro-choice people, won't actually get abortions on just economic grounds?

Besides, having twins is an entirely different thing than having a single child at a time, and much more expensive even than getting two children one at a time.

Over here firing someone over pregnancy issues is *illegal* because it *negatively affects the entire economy*.

Have you ANY idea of how much it costs all of you to drive people from functional to dysfunctional? The cost, to the ENTIRE SOCIETY, of messing up people's lives is *prohibitive*. You have no idea.

Collapse -

Government not spending enough

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to Typical BS

I think the US government should be providing additional support for Canadians. The Canadian government doesn't hand out quite enough and people actually have to work now. I think the US government and YOUR tax dollars would go a long way in helping Canadians find more relaxation and time to enjoy their glorious country. I mean, seriously! What kind of R&R do you really expect to enjoy when living in a central American dust bowl, the ever flooding and tornado ridden coasts or the unbearably hot, stay inside your trailer with the A/C on Nevada, Florida or southern California? Face it, Canadians have the land, the sea, the trees, the snow capped mountains and so much more to enjoy, just not the time due to having to work every day. America could really help out and start making Canadians feel better about their neighbours to the south who rape the country of resources. Just cough up more dough, quadruple the welfare rate and let Canadians enjoy their country for once! C'mon America, work more so others don't have to!

Collapse -

Why are we spending money on war?

by AV . In reply to $72 billion on food stamp ...

We shouldn't be, but that is a different discussion entirely. We as a country are seriously broke. Unfortunately, once you get into a war its not so easy to get out.


Collapse -

We. Are. Not. Broke.

by NickNielsen In reply to Why are we spending money ...

We as a country have the single largest economy on the planet, with a 2010 GDP somewhere between $14.4 trillion and $15.1 trillion (let's split the difference and call it $14.75 trillion).

The expected average federal tax rate (Tax receipts/GDP) is expected to be about 14.8%, meaning the federal government would receive about $2.18 trillion in tax collections. If the overall federal tax rate was at the post WW2 average of 18.5%, the federal government would receive about $2.73 trillion, about $550 billion more (deficit reduction!). If we eliminate the war spending, that money can either be not spent at all (more deficit reduction!) or we could spend some of it on badly needed infrastructure projects (creating jobs and putting people to work, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for food stamps - deficit reduction again!) and not spend the rest (even more deficit reduction!).


Collapse -

If we're not broke, than why do we borrow $.40 on every dollar?

by AV . In reply to We. Are. Not. Broke.

We are living in a dream in this country. Even if war spending is eliminated, it doesn't address the existing debt and future spending on entitlements when all the baby boomers retire. That is huge. And, we have a sputtering economy. Not enough investment in America to sustain itself.

The re-election of Obama was a bummer for business. All they can look forward to now is higher taxes and being straddled with Obamacare.


Related Discussions

Related Forums