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.
I'm much more inclined to support subsidizing people who are productive and create food for people than people who sit back and let someone else produce for them.
You do know that many many, if not the majority, of people on food stamps already work? Not everyone on food stamps is a fat, uneducated black woman that never had a job in her life complete with 10 kids from 4 boyfriends
I appreciate you bringing this up. But really, there are better ways to eliminate even more federal gov't spending, but for political reasons no one will vote for them (not buying unnecessary things for defense is a good example).
This doesn't change what I said, though. Republicans are still just as much of "gimmes" as welfare recipients are. They love to blast poor people for taking government aid, but go try taking away their free schools or social security or Medicare, or eliminate an unnecessary tax break, and they'll flip out.
I somewhat agree with this.
There needs to be Medicare/aid and SS reform too.
I specifically said I wasn't talking about people who are productive. Maybe you should learn to read.
Maybe you should learn to write your own native language better
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow
I'm much more inclined to support subsidizing people who are productive and create food for people¹ than people who sit back and let someone else produce for them².
¹That means you only support subsidizing the "job creators". Key qualifier here is the word "and"
²Everyone else that's not a "job creator"
You do know that many many, if not the majority, of people on food stamps already work? Not everyone on food stamps is a fat, uneducated black woman that never had a job in her life complete with 10 kids from 4 boyfriends
NO ONE has an issue with these folks needing assistance.
We have an issue with the last part of your post. And all the welfare fraud.
I'm much more inclined to support subsidizing people who are productive and create food for people than people who sit back and let someone else produce for them.
The question is of NEED. 100,00 people barely scraping by certainly need a few hundred dollars for food more than an executive needs a new million-dollar house.
It'd be great if the government could give out cookies to people for working hard but I think the private sector does a good enough job of that. And that's not even the case here, for these companies "work" by giving money to legislators' campaigns, and get their welfare in return.
Maybe you should learn to write your own native language better
¹That means you only support subsidizing the "job creators". Key qualifier here is the word "and"
²Everyone else that's not a "job creator"
I didn't say anything about job creators, you're the only one in here making ignorant and sweeping generalizations.
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.
