• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House bans welfare recipients' money from strip clubs, liquor stores

sookster said:
Where is the empathy people? What did they do to deserve and experience neglect like this?
Click to expand...
What the **** does empathy have to do with thinking that those on welfare should not be allowed to use welfare and foodstamps to buy booze,junk food and luxury food? I grew up poor.
 
lizzie said:
Yet another reason why he shouldn't be receiving welfare. If a guy can cook crawfish and make a profit, he should be running his own business and paying into the kitty like those of us who are paying the bills.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you can't get a job and your saving have run out to the point that you have to go on the dole, it's always best to open a restaurant. Business licenses, equipment, building, insurance, inventory, advertising. He can come to a caring person like you to front the risk side of the business, as he has no money. It's obvious to me that you have a great deal of experience in all this. How many people have you personally fronted so far?
 
jamesrage said:
What the **** does empathy have to do with thinking that those on welfare should not be allowed to use welfare and foodstamps to buy booze,junk food and luxury food? I grew up poor.
Click to expand...

Conservatives on how poor they were:

 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You don't have to repeat yourself.
We already know that everything you post about is, rich vs. poor.

That shtick is old.
Click to expand...


Its not shtick to those that have any awareness that half the country is living in or near poverty thanks to supply side economics and deregulation.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Conservatives on how poor they were:

Click to expand...




We didn't live in a hole in the ground or a lake but we did live in a crappy two bedroom roach and mouse infested duplex and we were on public assistance every now and then.
 
Catawba said:
Its not shtick to those that have any awareness that half the country is living in or near poverty thanks to supply side economics and deregulation.
Click to expand...

It certainly is a shtick.
Every thread that has anything to do with welfare or reasonable adjustments there of, gets bombed with nonsensical posts of rich vs. poor/dem vs. rep, from you.

It's a old, worn out and mostly off topic.
 
jamesrage said:
Seeing how 50% of American households do not pay federal income tax I find that hard to believe.How does someone who pays no federal income tax and getting welfare and food stamps benifit more from tax dollars that rich people?
Click to expand...



Seeing how federal income taxes are only 40% of federal revenue it don't mean jack ****.

The average tax cut we voted to give the rich is more than times on average the amount we pay anyone on welfare. That doesn't even include the cost of the military to expand and protect the riches of the wealthy.

You think we invaded Iraq to provide more riches for the poor in this country???
 
What the **** does empathy have to do with thinking that those on welfare should not be allowed to use welfare and foodstamps to buy booze,junk food and luxury food?
Click to expand...

Great, you were poor.

So you can't buy junk food.
You can't buy luxury food.
So you buy food that is in between? Who determines this? How would you go about enforcing such regulations?
Booze? You serious? That is a legal product when you are over 21. If you do not want people buying such a thing, maybe you should reflect on your views on drugs. Booze is a legal drug, hate to break it to you. Fact of the matter is, it is a product that you can purchase at a grocery store.

Empathy has everything to do with it. You just are pissed that someone else is spending our money on something that you would not spend on. Grow up past four please.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It certainly is a shtick.
Every thread that has anything to do with welfare or reasonable adjustments there of, gets bombed with nonsensical posts of rich vs. poor/dem vs. rep, from you.

It's a old, worn out and mostly off topic.
Click to expand...

It is a rich vs poor issue.
 
Catawba said:
"What a stupid thing to say."

More tax dollars directly benefit the rich than the poor.
Click to expand...

This subjective claim has NOTHING to do with welfare benefits or the contingencies upon which we might bestow them. Stay on topic.
 
Catawba said:
Seeing how federal income taxes are only 40% of federal revenue it don't mean jack ****.

The average tax cut we voted to give the rich is more than times on average the amount we pay anyone on welfare. That doesn't even include the cost of the military to expand and protect the riches of the wealthy.

You think we invaded Iraq to provide more riches for the poor in this country???
Click to expand...

Good points. I read yesterday, I think, that the GOP is planning to federal job cuts to re-level the funding for the DOD. That's effing brilliant. Make more poor people so that Carlyle Group and all the defense contractors can continue to make big profits.
 
Neomalthusian said:
This subjective claim has NOTHING to do with welfare benefits or the contingencies upon which we might bestow them. Stay on topic.
Click to expand...

I suggest your definition of welfare is subjective, which is born out by the part of the post you responded to but cut off:

"Mitt Romney's tax plan would cut taxes for fewer than half of American households, with the wealthy getting most of the benefits, according to an independent analysis released Thursday.

Some taxpayers at the lower end of the scale — those who make less than $40,000 a year — could face a tax increase under Romney's plan.

Under the presumption that the Bush-era tax reductions are extended — as Romney has proposed — nearly all Americans who make more than $1 million would get tax cuts that average $150,000, the review by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found."


That's more than any welfare recipient gets, no matter what they spend it on.
 
Catawba said:
I suggest your definition of welfare is subjective, which is born out by the part of the post you responded to but cut off:
Click to expand...

I cut your posts off all the time because they're so irrelevant.

That's more than any welfare recipient gets, no matter what they spend it on.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who you think "gets more." What matters is why they're getting anything in the first place. I'm not here to defend Romney's whatever plan. Welfare recipients apply to the government to receive funds directly based upon some sort of claim that they need it, usually for something basic. Survival-level. That's the deal. The government hands out taxpayer money to people who demonstrate some sort of need for it. People who will turn around and use it in strip clubs don't need it, and therefore shouldn't get it.

Your attempts to make this about the rich are a pathetic distraction.
 
radcen said:
Then again there's the other perspective: I know it just makes the veins in your head burst to think that you can't keep those you deem less worthy than you under your thumb, but that's life.
Click to expand...
WTF are you talking about? Do you REALLY think that's how I see things? That they are "less worthy"?

Man you got a ****ed up world view son.

You, a person, are free to buy whatever you want, eat what you want, MORE POWER TO YOU. With your own money, that you earned.

When you are on the tab of the TAX PAYER, essentials. Yeah, it sucks, I get that, but that's life. Governmen t isn't there to help you enjoy the nice things in life, it's there to help when you need it most. If you're buying luxury items... YOU DON'T NEED THE ****ING HELP.

My problem is people using OTHER PEOPLES MONEY instead of their own.

What part of that do you see as oppression?

I absolutely do not get how you see my stance as anything about "unworthy" or oppression.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not at all.
It's "making sure beneficiaries of these programs gets the most utility from said programs, so they don't need them anymore."

You made it a rich vs. poor issue but injecting all that nonsense.
Click to expand...

If we wanted to get rid of welfare, we would pay people a living wage that did not require subsistence through taxpayer supported welfare.
 
Catawba said:
If we wanted to get rid of welfare, we would pay people a living wage that did not require subsistence through taxpayer supported welfare.
Click to expand...

Do you just pop in and post random crap, as if it were the thread topic?
Where did I say "get rid of welfare?"

You're just trying to steer the thread in your direction, to pontificate about Republicans or some other nonsense.
Face it, I've got your shtick figured out and have neutered it.
 
Catawba said:
If we wanted to get rid of welfare, we would pay people a living wage that did not require subsistence through taxpayer supported welfare.
Click to expand...
Pay them for what? With what money? On what moral basis do you come up with such nonsense?
 
MrVicchio said:
Pay them for what? With what money? On what moral basis do you come up with such nonsense?
Click to expand...

Pay for your own burger and stop making us pay for it!
 
MrVicchio said:
Pay them for what? With what money? On what moral basis do you come up with such nonsense?
Click to expand...

Pay them for full-time work that employers need for their business. They would be paid the same way all minimum wage workers have been paid during the decades that minimum wage has been in existence. In my locality, a living wage would be about $1.00 an hour more than current minimum wage.

The moral basis is its better for a man's or woman's body and spirit to work for a living than forced to be dependent on taxpayer supported welfare to survive.
 
Catawba said:
Pay them for full-time work that employers need for their business. They would be paid the same way all minimum wage workers have been paid during the decades that minimum wage has been in existence. In my locality, a living wage would be about $1.00 an hour more than current minimum wage.

The moral basis is its better for a man's or woman's body and spirit to work for a living than forced to be dependent on taxpayer supported welfare to survive.
Click to expand...
Living Wages are great on paper, make people feel good and all, but economically they are a disaster. When employers are forced to pay more for an employee then the employee's work justifies...

And people wonder jobs keep going out of country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom