Food Stamps In Crosshairs Of Republicans' Plan To Save Military (party, economy)

[SHABAZZ310]

These dimwits have some nerve. How do they consider themselves patriotic when they’re unwilling to sacrifice for the greater good? I guess it’s profits at any cost.



Food Stamps In Crosshairs Of Republicans' Plan To Save Military

[lifelongMOgal]

IIRC, it was the Democrats who passed "Pay-Go". Now they are unwilling to follow their own rules? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Meanwhile the left screams for a cut to farm subsidies...........

Newsflash: Food stamps = farm subsidies

When the OP uses the word dimwits he projects too much.

[KUchief25]

Good point. Most don't eve realize where the food stamp bounty comes from.

[GregW]

Reducing government spending in a liquidity crisis like this is a fool’s game. Reducing the amount of money (debt) in circulation would result in certain economic collapse. The economy and the country would do better if we cut military spending on mercenaries and increased Food Stamp spending. The former money goes directly to Abu Dhabi (or wherever the Blackwater gangster is holed up) and the food Stamp money directly to American Farmers. I prefer the latter.

[nighttrain55]

serious question here, how come the republicans never eliminated entitlements when they had control of house and senate, while having a republican president?

[hnsq]

How about we cut spending to both food stamps and military?

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310

These dimwits have some nerve. How do they consider themselves patriotic when they’re unwilling to sacrifice for the greater good? I guess it’s profits at any cost.



Food Stamps In Crosshairs Of Republicans' Plan To Save Military

I don't recall having come across you before so I'll give you an opportunity to answer a question all other Liberals have refused to answer.

The US Census Bureau reports there are 110 Million Households.

Media Industry reports show 99 Million Households have cable, or satelite or both.

ISPs report that 90 Million Households have internet connection.

The USDA reports 47 Million Households receiving Food Stamp benefits.

Now, here's the question, what's wrong with that picture?

Seeing how *******s always dodged the issue, I thought maybe it was due to the fact that it required the application of 5th Grade Math. So I'll do the math for you.

All things being equal:

110 Million Households - 47 Million Households w/Food Stamps = 63 Million Households.

That means 63 Million Households should be have cable, satellite or both, not 99 Million, and 63 Million Households should have internet connection, not 90 Million.

What intelligent people understand then, is that tax-payers are not buying food for "needy" people, rather tax-payers are paying the cable/satellite bills for other people; tax-payers are paying the internet service bill for other people; tax-payers are paying the cell-phone bills for other people.

Right?

Because logically, if you don't have enough money to buy food for your family, then you don't have enough money to pay for your cable/satellite service or your internet service or your cell-phone. Yet the evidence proves people that people are spending money on cable and not on food.

Now, justify to us why we should provide luxury items to people?

Specifically, justify why I personally should pay for other people's cable and satellite, when I don't have cable or satellite.

I'll wait for your justification.

Patriotically...

Mircea

[KUchief25]

Originally Posted by nighttrain55

serious question here, how come the republicans never eliminated entitlements when they had control of house and senate, while having a republican president?

Because of politics. If the dems/repubs either side ever did something to social security/medicare/food stamps, any entitlement program the other side would scream for months and the American people would vote em out. They both know this. Hell even a cut and folks are screaming about how so and so wants grandma to die or kids to starve. Sooooooooo they kick the can down the road over and over again. Too bad a cliff is on the horizon.

[nighttrain55]

Originally Posted by KUchief25

Because of politics. If the dems/repubs either side ever did something to social security/medicare/food stamps, any entitlement program the other side would scream for months and the American people would vote em out. They both know this. Hell even a cut and folks are screaming about how so and so wants grandma to die or kids to starve. Sooooooooo they kick the can down the road over and over again. Too bad a cliff is on the horizon.

I figured that was the answer, but I wasn't too sure. This goes to an issue I have with us as americans. We become so consumed with beating each other, that we elect people who have to toe the party line, or they risk their spot in the goverment. Doesn't anybody see a problem with this? Neither side will touch entitlements because it would be political suicide. Why in the world should it be like this?

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by GregW

Reducing government spending in a liquidity crisis like this is a fool’s game. Reducing the amount of money (debt) in circulation would result in certain economic collapse. The economy and the country would do better if we cut military spending on mercenaries and increased Food Stamp spending. The former money goes directly to Abu Dhabi (or wherever the Blackwater gangster is holed up) and the food Stamp money directly to American Farmers. I prefer the latter.

That depends on where you believe the liquidity crisis exists and what government is doing to resolve the crisis. Who exactly do you consider to be in a liquidity crisis in 2012? Corporations are sitting on piles of money. The stock market is performing at decent levels. Banks are lending money. Where should this "government spending" take place? If your idea of a liquidity crisis is merely that millions of American's are on food stamps and other entitlement programs, then you're not really speaking of a liquidity crisis by most definitions. Your speaking of a solvency crisis, which would mean extending a bailout to millions of Americans if you were to solve that kind of crisis. Personal bailouts aren't the answer.