Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because the economy isn't getting better. It's that simple. The libs think if they repeat something long enough and often enough it will come to fruition.
You are moving the goalpost. I was responding to post #93:
The context was FOOD STAMPS, not the entire budget.
The Food Stamp budget (SNAP) is $69 billion, as I said above. Your graph doesn't even show the SNAP expenditures.
i was strengthening your point by showing the full stats of the budget spent by the US and showing the drop in the bucket SNAP actually was. FYI, SNAP would fall under agriculture subsidies.
i was strengthening your point by showing the full stats of the budget spent by the US and showing the drop in the bucket SNAP actually was. FYI, SNAP would fall under agriculture subsidies.
1) Because the vast majority of people on foodstamps are poor and with kids?
2) Because we keep shoveling more and more and more people in the door with no real skills and from impoverished backgrounds to compete with our already huge underclass?
3) Because the aforementioned "huddled masses yearning to be free" also love to go condom and birth control free, contributing to #1 at exponential and ever-growing rates?
You are moving the goalpost. I was responding to post #93:
The context was FOOD STAMPS, not the entire budget.
The Food Stamp budget (SNAP) is $69 billion, as I said above. Your graph doesn't even show the SNAP expenditures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
i was strengthening your point by showing the full stats of the budget spent by the US and showing the drop in the bucket SNAP actually was. FYI, SNAP would fall under agriculture subsidies.
1) Because the vast majority of people on foodstamps are poor and with kids?
2) Because we keep shoveling more and more and more people in the door with no real skills and from impoverished backgrounds to compete with our already huge underclass?
3) Because the aforementioned "huddled masses yearning to be free" also love to go condom and birth control free, contributing to #1 at exponential and ever-growing rates?
how do you know what you say is so? Do have statistics on what contraceptives the poor uses or doesn't use? Stats on the birthrate?
In addition, many workers are paid so little that they are eligible for the program. Don't like that, raise the minimum wage.
malarkey, I raised a severely learning disabled child as single mother and although my full time job wasn't much above minimum wage I had 2 or 3 other jobs at all times because I had a child to support. That made me ineligible for food stamps or any other "services".
People need to get off their asses and work more.
how do you know what you say is so? Do have statistics on what contraceptives the poor uses or doesn't use? Stats on the birthrate?
So won't you guys both have to agree to tge definition of 'poor' before beginning the point counter point, and even then, the outliers just to the first contention about 'poor' will be semantically back and forthrd, probably precluding even getting to birth rates, contraception, etc..., etc... So basically both sides just talking 'at' or listening to 'respond' vs coming to any true conversation?
So won't you guys both have to agree to the definition of 'poor' before beginning the point counter point, and even then, the outliers just to the first contention about 'poor' will be semantically back and forth, probably precluding even getting to birth rates, contraception, etc..., etc... So basically both sides just talking 'at' or listening to 'respond' vs coming to any true conversation?
I'd say a reasonable definition of poor is one who receives public assistance.
That said, this is what we know about birth rates, etc...
Women receiving public assistance, as a group, have a birth rate 3 times higher than women who don't receive public assistance. That, in itself has led to the additional problem of nearly half of all U.S. births being paid for by Medicaid. 70% of those kids will never rise out of poverty, even as adults.
Who thinks supporting all those additional poor people (Medicaid, SNAP, public housing, etc., etc.) that are added to our population every year is sustainable, or even possible at all?
malarkey, I raised a severely learning disabled child as single mother and although my full time job wasn't much above minimum wage I had 2 or 3 other jobs at all times because I had a child to support. That made me ineligible for food stamps or any other "services".
People need to get off their asses and work more.
How were you able to do that? Did you have a family member care for them, day care at your job when they weren't at school or pay for it elsewhere? I work two jobs and make OK money but I wouldn't be able to work 60+ hours if I had a kid especially one with special needs whether learning disabilities or physical disabilities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
