• 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!

Food-stamp use doubles

Fenton said:
What started ? The recession ?

Sorry its been 4 years. Having a liberal explain the fundamentals of our free enterprise system is like having an auto mechanic explain brain surgery. Your priority isn't to effectively understand or to explain the proccesses that fuel or weigh our economy down, its to defend your candidate, your President.

Chalking up a static economy, its actually shrinking, to the prior President really taxes your credibillity.

Private investors and corporations actually hire folks who objectively analyze current and FUTURE trends and make decisions based on their conclusions.

Right now the consensus is to protect their capital. And you think thats totally disconnected from this Presidents rhetoric ? Or the multiple tax increases and mandates in ObamaCare that will and ARE being passed onto the consumer.
Click to expand...

Liberal, conservative, republican, democrat means nothing to true. The recession started before he did anything. That's just a fact.

And do you really believe any politicians rhetoric is equal to truth? Seriously. Sure, they are hoping it will get better so they can take credit. But let's not confuse that with what they can really do.
 
The term "food" should be replaced on food stamps, you know like "illegal" applying to illegal immigrants. Since they started them the program has been a con game/swindle.
 
Fenton said:
Chalking up a static economy, its actually shrinking, to the prior President really taxes your credibillity.
Click to expand...

You can't really deny that the current mess we are in started prior to Obama taking office. In fact it started before Bush and even before Clinton. Our country has been on a path toward economic destruction for quite some time. Maybe someone else can point to when it started, I can't, but we didn't just get on this path. Obama is not doing anything or much to correct it, or in my opinion even improve it. But he did not start it.
 
rhinefire said:
The term "food" should be replaced on food stamps, you know like "illegal" applying to illegal immigrants. Since they started them the program has been a con game/swindle.
Click to expand...

Is it so surprising that when a government starts giving away food that more people will want free food? Or barter it for something they want more?

If there were TV Stamps, Air Conditioner Stamps, Flower Stamps, etc., people would be lined up to get free TV's, AC's, and flowers, or trade them for something they want instead.

Governments in democracies will get votes for these giveaways and the majority of people will support them. It does not speak well for the future.
 
Kreton said:
You can't really deny that the current mess we are in started prior to Obama taking office. In fact it started before Bush and even before Clinton. Our country has been on a path toward economic destruction for quite some time. Maybe someone else can point to when it started, I can't, but we didn't just get on this path. Obama is not doing anything or much to correct it, or in my opinion even improve it. But he did not start it.
Click to expand...

The electorate had a chance to change course but chose otherwise. The Obamaphoners won, and it was not a good thing for the country.
 
Kreton said:
voting the other way probably wouldn't have mattered. D and R are basically the same.
Click to expand...

Romney was a better, more experienced man tha Obama. He was an experienced turn-around expert at a time when the country needed some serious turning around. But those who wanted an Obamaphone, or variations thereof, decided that the present(s) is more important the the future.

Obama Phone Program Costs Govt. Over $2 Billion
 
Grant said:
Romney was a better, more experienced man tha Obama. He was an experienced turn-around expert at a time when the country needed some serious turning around. But those who wanted an Obamaphone, or variations thereof, decided that the present(s) is more important the the future.

Obama Phone Program Costs Govt. Over $2 Billion
Click to expand...

The only difference between a Romney and Obama presidency is the people who are mad and the people who are blindlessly defending the president would be reversed.
 
Grant said:
Romney was a better, more experienced man tha Obama. He was an experienced turn-around expert at a time when the country needed some serious turning around. But those who wanted an Obamaphone, or variations thereof, decided that the present(s) is more important the the future.

Obama Phone Program Costs Govt. Over $2 Billion
Click to expand...

Also from your article:

The service, however, is not new. It actually began back in 1984 as a land-line program to make sure poor people would have a service that allows them to keep in contact with their families and to help them in job searches and emergencies.
Click to expand...

And just who was the president in 1984? Damn near right there smack dab in the middle of a presidency of someone......

And that presidency was followed by 4 years of a guy with the same party affiliation. And other D and R congresses and presidents have come and gone since this program launched and guess what? It is still here.
 
Kreton said:
Also from your article:



And just who was the president in 1984? Damn near right there smack dab in the middle of a presidency of someone......

And that presidency was followed by 4 years of a guy with the same party affiliation. And other D and R congresses and presidents have come and gone since this program launched and guess what? It is still here.
Click to expand...

Oh i realize it was begun in 1984 and, as usual, with all the good intentions that lead to such waste. But Obama supporters are the ones who made these 'free' phones famous. Vote for Obama and you get a free Obamaphone!! Another example of the government bribing the people with their own money.

Just read the first two sentences!
Nearly half of the 6 million people who received free cellphones and communications services through the government-funded Lifeline program last year apparently were ineligible or did not respond to certification requests, a new report shows. The U.S. government spent about $2.2 billion on the program last year alone, reports The Wall Street Journal, which conducted a review of the program's funding.
Click to expand...

Think some of the electorate might have been bribed with Obamaphones??? Of course if it wasn't Obamaphones it would have been food stamps or something else.
 
Kreton said:
The only difference between a Romney and Obama presidency is the people who are mad and the people who are blindlessly defending the president would be reversed.
Click to expand...

The country had a chance with Romney.
 
Grant said:
Oh i realize it was begun in 1984 and, as usual, with all the good intentions that lead to such waste. But Obama supporters are the ones who made these 'free' phones famous. Vote for Obama and you get a free Obamaphone!! Another example of the government bribing the people with their own money.

Just read the first two sentences!


Think some of the electorate might have been bribed with Obamaphones??? Of course if it wasn't Obamaphones it would have been food stamps or something else.
Click to expand...

So it is not bribery when a republican does it, but it is when a democrat does?

Don't get me wrong i half agree with you. Politicians use things like people's greed all the time in order to manipulate them in government. I think you are more upset that a republican didnt think to exploit the greed in this manner first.
 
Kreton said:
So it is not bribery when a republican does it, but it is when a democrat does?
Click to expand...

Is that the message you got? Do you have any evidence that anyone was ever bribed with a Reaganphone?

Don't get me wrong i half agree with you. Politicians use things like people's greed all the time in order to manipulate them in government. I think you are more upset that a republican didnt think to exploit the greed in this manner first.
Click to expand...
Think whatever you want, but i do not support corruption from any politician or party.
 
Boo Radley said:
Liberal, conservative, republican, democrat
means nothing to true. The recession started before he did anything. That's just a fact.

And do you really believe any politicians rhetoric is equal to truth? Seriously. Sure, they are hoping it will get better so they can take credit. But let's not confuse that with what they can really do.
Click to expand...


It started, it bottomed out prior to the stimulus and has been perpetuated for over 4 years now.

Its not the Conservatives fault that Liberals and Democrats are either too arrogant or too ignorant to understand what kind of impact a President and a Congress can have on the private sector.

And with NO private sector participation there is NO economy.

So with Obama's rhetoric, from everything from "you didn't build this, to his "eat the rich" nonsense, to his threatened tax increases, his increased regulations through the EPA and the highly destructive ObamaCare law, to say the Presidents somehow disconnected from the actions of Corporations is really NAIVE.

Its purposely NAIVE.
 
Fenton said:
It started, it bottomed out prior to the stimulus and has been perpetuated for over 4 years now.

Its not the Conservatives fault that Liberals and Democrats are either too arrogant or too ignorant to understand what kind of impact a President and a Congress can have on the private sector.

And with NO private sector participation there is NO economy.

So with Obama's rhetoric, from everything from "you didn't build this, to his "eat the rich" nonsense, to his threatened tax increases, his increased regulations through the EPA and the highly destructive ObamaCare law, to say the Presidents somehow disconnected from the actions of Corporations is really NAIVE.

Its purposely NAIVE.
Click to expand...

Or that some believe too much, as you seem to, that government is the answer. :coffeepap
 
Grant said:
Is that the message you got? Do you have any evidence that anyone was ever bribed with a Reaganphone?
Click to expand...

If Reagan launched the program that you are now claiming is bribery then what more evidence do you need? If one is bribery then the other is. Is it really so difficult to judge both parties and all politicians by the same standard? If it is wrong for one president to do it, then it is wrong for any president to do the same thing. Or politician. You either think it is bribery and it is wrong or you don't.
 
About those free "Obamaphones":
The so called "lifeline" program to provide free phones to the poor was started during the Reagan Administration, expanded during the Clinton Administration, expanded to include cell phones during Bush II.

So, they're really Reclibush phones, right?

Oh, and the Reclibush phones aren't paid for with tax money.
 
Dittohead not! said:
About those free "Obamaphones":
The so called "lifeline" program to provide free phones to the poor was started during the Reagan Administration, expanded during the Clinton Administration, expanded to include cell phones during Bush II.

So, they're really Reclibush phones, right?

Oh, and the Reclibush phones aren't paid for with tax money.
Click to expand...

Sure they are, it's just a hidden tax in your phone bill...
 
Boo Radley said:
Or that some believe too much, as you seem to, that government is the answer. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Jesus! I swear Joe, I don't know what makes me more mad, your circular logic, your egocentric manner of posting as if you and you alone have all the answers, or that it is all logical fallacy, after logical fallacy with you. But, I think in your quest to constantly get jabs in at posters sometimes you stumble on a point...

"Some do believe too much".... Some actually believe that Obama doesn't base, and calculate every action, every word on political gain....Sad really...
 
j-mac said:
Jesus! I swear Joe, I don't know what makes me more mad, your circular logic, your egocentric manner of posting as if you and you alone have all the answers, or that it is all logical fallacy, after logical fallacy with you. But, I think in your quest to constantly get jabs in at posters sometimes you stumble on a point...

"Some do believe too much".... Some actually believe that Obama doesn't base, and calculate every action, every word on political gain....Sad really...
Click to expand...

J, what is circular is your often misreading of my comments. I've made very clear and coherent arguments. The joke is that some of see no other cause for anything but the government. That can only be true if the government controls everything. If they do, then government really is the answer.

That's the argument you and a few others are trying to make, wildly and often Inaccurately blaming every single thing on Obama. Doing that is illogical.
 
Last edited:
Kreton said:
If Reagan launched the program that you are now claiming is bribery then what more evidence do you need? If one is bribery then the other is. Is it really so difficult to judge both parties and all politicians by the same standard? If it is wrong for one president to do it, then it is wrong for any president to do the same thing. Or politician. You either think it is bribery and it is wrong or you don't.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that food stamps began as bribery? Welfare? Medicare?

There are hundreds of social programs. Do you believe they all began as bribery?

Do you understand though that eventually, through unscrupulous politicians and their campaign workers, that government programs can take the form of bribery?

Do you understand that? I mean really? Do you understand the differences?

No?
 
Boo Radley said:
J, what is circular is your often misreading of my comments.
Click to expand...

No, I read them correctly, that's what gives you such a fit.

I've made very clear and coherent arguments.
Click to expand...

You have? I have to say, that trying to decipher some of your postings can be painful...Allow me to give an example....

"That's kind of a silly question, but he sent he first business person to be short sighted. He'll, the auto industry has made being short sighted an art form. They've need government help as much or more than any industry I think."

Can you proof read before hitting the send button please?

The joke is that some of see no other cause for anything but the government. That can only be true if the government controls everything. If they do, then government really is the answer.
Click to expand...

This is a textbook example of not one but two logical fallacies...One being circular logic, and the other being the false dilemma. When you try to say that 'if A, then B is the only answer, so C is true' that is a fallacy, and sorry, but you lose the argument.

That's the argument you and a few others are trying to make, wildly and often Inaccurately blaming every single thing on Obama. Doing that is illogical.
Click to expand...

No. No one is saying that government is the answer. What we are saying is that Obama, and progressives are doing things designed to make people more dependent on government. Such as food stamps. In reality we are saying the exact opposite, that government screws it up when they try to place themselves as the answer to all problems. So, it is either a bit of classic projection for you to arrogantly say that we believe something, or such a failure in misreading the thoughts of another, that it takes on signs of epic fail in its assumption. :coffeepap:
 
Grant said:
Do you believe that food stamps began as bribery? Welfare? Medicare?

There are hundreds of social programs. Do you believe they all began as bribery?

Do you understand though that eventually, through unscrupulous politicians and their campaign workers, that government programs can take the form of bribery?

Do you understand that? I mean really? Do you understand the differences?

No?
Click to expand...

Again you are stating that one government official starts a program and it is a great idea. Another president does it and it is bribery. You either think social programs are political bribery or you dont. There is no difference.
 
Kreton said:
Again you are stating that one government official starts a program and it is a great idea. Another president does it and it is bribery. You either think social programs are political bribery or you dont. There is no difference.
Click to expand...

I think it is...We have historical proof that BOTH parties have strategized that government give aways will sway voters, however, when repubs do it it doesn't work as well as when demo's do it...Probably because in this arena, liberal messaging is far better than repub messaging...But let's be clear, since the seeds of FDR, these programs have been exploited by demo's to keep minority, and less educated voters on the plantation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom