• 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!

Politico: House GOP takes another cut at food stamp bill

ARealConservative said:
sort of, yes.

I wouldn't go on the corner to do it. I would visit churches and other places to seek out aid.
Click to expand...
Except....private charities have never been able to match the need.....and contributions are diluted by the overhead for so much redundancy.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Really? You need that explained? If you object to the majority, you either go along or leave. No one forces you to be a citizen.
Click to expand...

no matter the issue, that is your canned response?

peoples rights shouldn't be subjected to such a simple majority. slavery wasn't ok just because a majority said it was ok. your explanation is asinine
 
Moot said:
In theory, yes. But since conservatives are trying to abolish the IRS and dont like paying taxes themselves whose going to care if blue states only pay what the red states pay?
Click to expand...

How many financially well off liberals don't pay taxes?

I guess you would rather pay for IRS obscene wasteful spending, because if you pay taxes that's what you're doing.

Ah, the old blame it on conservatives "look over there" game. :lamo

Lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee accused the agency of grossly misusing taxpayer money when it spent at least $4.1 million at the conference on luxury hotel rooms, expensive training videos and outside speakers on topics such as leadership through painting.

A Treasury report released this week condemned the conference and said $3.2 million of the cost was funded by money set aside to hire enforcement employees.

Fink on Thursday said the IRS did not keep full records of the Anaheim, California, conference and warned the overall cost could have been as high as $5 million.
Click to expand...

IRS officials try to tame conference spending scandal | Reuters

See the hypocrisy in this statement?

The average American Joe couldn't get away with that.

You big government idolizers crack me up.
 
ARealConservative said:
no matter the issue, that is your canned response?

peoples rights shouldn't be subjected to such a simple majority. slavery wasn't ok just because a majority said it was ok. your explanation is asinine
Click to expand...
I don't think you are going to get very far making a morality argument AGAINST charity, if I remember there are some writings about tithing...... and giving unto Ceasar.

I object to over sixty percent of discretionary spending going to "defense", but then a real perspective on the SNAP spending was not expected.

PS....you do know that the biggest recipients are poor Whites in the South, were most of those states are not net contributors?
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
I don't think you are going to get very far making a morality argument AGAINST charity, if I remember there are some writings about tithing...... and giving unto Ceasar.

I object to over sixty percent of discretionary spending going to "defense", but then a real perspective on the SNAP spending was not expected.

PS....you do know that the biggest recipients are poor Whites in the South, were most of those states are not net contributors?
Click to expand...

biblical responses are poor debate, which you seem to excel at.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062139502 said:
How many financially well off liberals don't pay taxes?
Click to expand...
How many well off cons don't?

I guess you would rather pay for IRS obscene wasteful spending, because if you pay taxes that's what you're doing.
Click to expand...
Who would be defending waste?

Ah, the old blame it on conservatives "look over there" game. :lamo
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, who is trying to change the subject?




See the hypocrisy in this statement?
Click to expand...
Nope, care to explain?

The average American Joe couldn't get away with that.
Click to expand...
Non-sequitur, tha average joe doesn't have the IRS budget.

You big government idolizers crack me up.
Click to expand...
You cons make poor argument.
 
Last edited:
ARealConservative said:
biblical responses are poor debate, which you seem to excel at.
Click to expand...
I hardly ever make Biblical argument, only when someone starts making morality arguments that conflict with the assumed morality playbook.

Don't make morality arguments if they make for poor debate.......duh.
 
Moot said:
Lets see now, most people on food stamps are already working two jobs and still can't make ends meet which is why they rely on food stamps...and congress thinks they need to get another job? When will they have time to spend with and raise their kids?


Congress should be forced to spend a month in a poor single mother's shoes.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just misreading the OP, but the people targeted by the legislation would be those getting state waivers for not working 20 hours a week
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I hardly ever make Biblical argument, only when someone starts making morality arguments that conflict with the assumed morality playbook.

Don't make morality arguments if they make for poor debate.......duh.
Click to expand...

you are babbling incoherently. I'm not making an argument of morality.

forced charity is poor policy. charity needs to be personal. some times, the best charity is no charity. that requires personal communication. it requires something governments and red tape can't provide.

when I questioning you, you said like it or leave it. now you are talking about morality. read more, post less is the best advice you will ever receive.
 
ARealConservative said:
you are babbling incoherently. I'm not making an argument of morality.
Click to expand...
Ah, your argument citing " the majority wanted slavery" and "forced charity" are not morality based argument.

forced charity is poor policy. charity needs to be personal. some times, the best charity is no charity. that requires personal communication. it requires something governments and red tape can't provide.
Click to expand...
This is incoherent babbling based on nothing in particular....or some twisted morality?

when I questioning you, you said like it or leave it. now you are talking about morality. read more, post less is the best advice you will ever receive.
Click to expand...
Wow, this is coming from someone who cannot state a basis for his rhetoric.

Hmmm....meh,
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Maybe I'm just misreading the OP, but the people targeted by the legislation would be those getting state waivers for not working 20 hours a week
Click to expand...

State waivers. Isn't that a state right?


So who might be getting state waivers for not working twenty hours a week? The physically impaired, children, senior citizens, women with small children, and the unemployed due to lack of economic opportunities....did I leave anyone out?
 
Moot said:
State waivers. Isn't that a state right?
Click to expand...

1) Your rebuttal to the article was about how these people are already working two jobs. I just pointed out how anyone working part time would not be affected.

2) besides being a total red herring, I'm not a big supporter of "state rights". Especially where it concerns federal funds


So who might be getting state waivers for not working twenty hours a week? The physically impaired, children, senior citizens, women with small children, and the unemployed due to lack of economic opportunities....did I leave anyone out?
Click to expand...

Did you even read the OP? It made clear the bill concerned able-bodied adults. Maybe go back and read what your attempting to comment on, before we continue this discussion.


So who might be getting state waivers for not working twenty hours a week? The physically impaired, children, senior citizens, women with small children, and the unemployed due to lack of economic opportunities....did I leave anyone out?[/QUOTE]
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
and the unemployed due to lack of economic opportunities....did I leave anyone out?
Click to expand...
I think those ARE who are being targeted, the bill would not provide funding for the 20hr/week training....so states will not provide it.....and you will lose your benefits since you are not fulfilling the requirement.
 
ernst barkmann said:
so your saying CA, keeps it 53 NY 27 and the states you have your eye on, should have their representatives reduced?
Click to expand...
Do you believe in a representational government or not?

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons
Click to expand...


"The Constitution contains a mandate for a census. One of its stated objectives is to enable the proper apportionment of representation, state by state, in the House of Representatives. From the start, however, apportionment has been a mangled affair, a stain on our claim to be a true and fair representative democracy...."
Census nonsense - Los Angeles Times


the constitution does not state .....citizens.
Click to expand...
The Constitution does not state...slaves...either. But is there any doubt in anyones mind who the "3/5 persons" were? After the Civil War and the slaves were freed, the southern states counted them as whole persons while still denying them the right to vote and representation. What is so different from that and what the states with large illegal immigrant populations are doing now?
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
1) Your rebuttal to the article was about how these people are already working two jobs. I just pointed out how anyone working part time would not be affected.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

2) besides being a total red herring, I'm not a big supporter of "state rights". Especially where it concerns federal funds
Click to expand...
Does that include federal funds for health care?

Did you even read the OP? It made clear the bill concerned able-bodied adults. Maybe go back and read what your attempting to comment on, before we continue this discussion.
Click to expand...
My apologies.

So who might be getting state waivers for not working twenty hours a week? ..... women with small children, and the unemployed due to lack of economic opportunities, including fathers.......did I leave anyone out?
 
Moot said:
Do you believe in a representational government or not?
Click to expand...

i believe in mixed government of the founders federalist 40, ....not the stupidity of democracy

Moot said:
"The Constitution contains a mandate for a census. One of its stated objectives is to enable the proper apportionment of representation, state by state, in the House of Representatives. From the start, however, apportionment has been a mangled affair, a stain on our claim to be a true and fair representative democracy...."
Census nonsense - Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...

the census does not count citizens, it counts people, anybody.

you stated rural states, were counting people as citizens who were illegal..they are becuase thats what the constitution says to do.

by the way we are not a democracy, you will not find that word in our founding documents, or the constitution of any state.

we are a federal republic, with republican form of government ,not a democratic form....article 4 section 4



Moot said:
The Constitution does not state...slaves...either. But is there any doubt in anyones mind who the "3/5 persons" were? After the Civil War and the slaves were freed, the southern states counted them as whole persons while still denying them the right to vote and representation. What is so different from that and what the states with large illegal immigrant populations are doing now?
Click to expand...

actually it does, but not by name, the 13 14 15th amendments to our constitution were written for the slaves only, as stated by the USSC in the slaughterhouse case of 1873.

however later it has been stated by the court it applies to all citizens.........by stating that the bill of rights now applies to the states.

the amendments removed them from slavery, due process, could not be discriminated by governments, privileges and immunities, and they could not be denied the vote because they were a slave.

voting under the constitution by the founders was not a right. ..it was a privilege as stated by the founders....the court later called it a right.
 
Moot said:
Lets see now, most people on food stamps are already working two jobs and still can't make ends meet which is why they rely on food stamps...and congress thinks they need to get another job? When will they have time to spend with and raise their kids?


Congress should be forced to spend a month in a poor single mother's shoes.
Click to expand...

View attachment 67151482
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I think those ARE who are being targeted, the bill would not provide funding for the 20hr/week training....so states will not provide it.....and you will lose your benefits since you are not fulfilling the requirement.
Click to expand...

Twenty hours a week wouldn't even pay for day care. It would be like working so you could pay someone else to raise your kids.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I think those ARE who are being targeted, the bill would not provide funding for the 20hr/week training....so states will not provide it.....and you will lose your benefits since you are not fulfilling the requirement.
Click to expand...

I think something got screwed up while you were quoting me
 
Moot said:
So who might be getting state waivers for not working twenty hours a week? ..... women with small children, and the unemployed due to lack of economic opportunities, including fathers.......did I leave anyone out?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the exact wording of the bill, but the group of possible people effected by such a policy change would likely be much more broad than what you suggest, with some more than likely deserving the loss of assistance.

But I'm not sure how that changes the fact that you just spent 6 pages ranting about things that have no relation to the proposed legislation.


Does that include federal funds for health care?
Click to expand...

I am always amazed at seemingly how proud you are of your ignorance: raising some red herring based on what you assume my position is doesn't address the fact that you had absolutely no idea what you were ranting about. Secondly, my views on healthcare reform likely don't reflect from the mentally-stunted caricature that you were able to work up in your head
 
Moot said:
Twenty hours a week wouldn't even pay for day care. It would be like working so you could pay someone else to raise your kids.
Click to expand...

1)no, but it does serve the purpose of keeping people engaged with the economy.

2)which isn't exactly a bad thing. twenty hours out of a week is hardly a demanding schedule, even for someone with a kid

And it's not that I even agree with any policy outlined in the OP< it's just your objections up to this point seem based on nothing more than ignorance and hysterics
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
1)no, but it does serve the purpose of keeping people engaged with the economy.

2)which isn't exactly a bad thing. twenty hours out of a week is hardly a demanding schedule, even for someone with a kid

And it's not that I even agree with any policy outlined in the OP< it's just your objections up to this point seem based on nothing more than ignorance and hysterics
Click to expand...

just wondering but what exactly is your opinion about the policy outlined in the OP?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom