• 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 cuts. Get a job, you sack of crap freeloader.

Mashmont said:
The problem is many able-bodied people were put on food stamps. And when you put free goodies out there, hands will come out of the woodwork to grab it. But Marxists know this. 0bummer intentionally tried to collapse the system. That's why this was done. Then when Trump tries to right the ship, the Marxist left does they hyperbolic lies you just did. The left banks on its rank-and-file followers being dupes. Read my sig line. It sums it up perfectly.
Click to expand...

It must be an election year....the right are dragging out that tired old southern strategy welfare queen myth again.


Speaking of southern strategy....you know, when I look at a map of which states have the most SNAP recipients, it's always southern red states with large poor rural populations. So tell me, Mashmont, since you're such an expert on food stamp recipients...are rural southerners just lazy, marxists grabbing all the free goodies out there? Perhaps you'd rather have them begging and stealing just so they can eat? But then you'd have pay for more prisons and you'd end up feeding them anyway....which would end up costing more than if you just gave them food stamps. Or...the poor could just have as many children as they can because children make more money begging than adults do. But anyway you look at it, you're going to have more crime when you starve 40 million people.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Approximately 45 million Americans know hunger, unable to provide proper nourishment for themselves because of food affordability in one of the world's wealthiest nations. How is this good for the nation? How is this not a national problem? Over the decades, starting under the Reagan administration, federal revenue sharing with the states had decreased substantially. States are now receiving less federal revenues than they were during WWII. States with ever increasing liabilities for reconstructing infrastructure, meeting the immediate needs of greater populations, urban and rural decay issues, and so forth. Where will the state monies for replacing federal food supplemental programs come from? Shifting the burden neither lowers costs nor resolves an unacceptable unhealthy for the nation issue.

And of course, 15% of the nation's population malnourished translates to greater and more expensive health issues, another expense in need of reduction, easily accomplished with less expensive preventative nourishment.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution does it say that supplying food is a federal issue?

It doesn't, so:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Very few jobs (less than 3%) pay at (or below) the MW. If you bothered to get a job (even at MW) then you would discover (and possibly enjoy) the financial advantages of having a paycheck.
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the laws should not require a paycheck under our Constitutional form of Government only truer forms of free market Capitalism.
 
jimbo said:
Where in the Constitution does it say that supplying food is a federal issue?

It doesn't, so:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency.
 
danielpalos said:
Equal protection of the laws should not require a paycheck under our Constitutional form of Government only truer forms of free market Capitalism.
Click to expand...

There is no "equal protection" right to be supported by the government (taxpayers).
 
danielpalos said:
Our alleged war on poverty, gainsays your contention; "intellectual freeloader".
Click to expand...

You may allege all day and still not be granted UI or SNAP benefits, as I am sure that you are well aware.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Of those 40% how many are children, how many are unemployable elderly, disabled, and so forth? How many work for Walmart and Amazon? Do tell about the employment opportunities in Appalachia, the Pennsylvania coal fields, the rust belt, the Mississippi delta, the Alabama cotton fields, and so forth.
Click to expand...

It is a fact, that after tax forms are filed, about 50% of those filing pay no federal income tax. Many of those 50% get other peoples money in their refund.
 
danielpalos said:
only via the Injustice of unequal protection of the law. How many States have the equivalent to an equal rights amendment?
Click to expand...

You seem terribly confused about what "equal protection of the law" actually means. We have laws which define precisely who (which subset of the general population) qualifies for UI and SNAP benefits (and to what extent). If you are not included in that subset then you are not being denied equal protection, you simply did not meet the legal requirements to qualify for those benefits.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You seem terribly confused about what "equal protection of the law" actually means. We have laws which define precisely who (which subset of the general population) qualifies for UI and SNAP benefits (and to what extent). If you are not included in that subset then you are not being denied equal protection, you simply did not meet the legal requirements to qualify for those benefits.
Click to expand...

I know what it means better than most of the right wing. The law is employment at the will of either party. There can be no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State unless as an Punishment for a Crime.
 
Last edited:
danielpalos said:
I know what it means better than most of the right wing. The is employment at the will of either party. There can be no Requirement to work in an at-will employment State unless as an Punishment for a Crime.
Click to expand...

Lack of qualifying for a financial reward from the state (UI or SNAP benefits) is not even in the same ballpark as a punishment (for a crime).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Lack of qualifying for a financial reward from the state (UI or SNAP benefits) is not even in the same ballpark as a punishment (for a crime).
Click to expand...

It is about equal protection of a specific law. A lack of equal protection of the law is an actionable offense. Criminalizing being Poor is a punishment to the homeless.
 
danielpalos said:
It is about equal protection of a specific law. A lack of equal protection of the law is an actionable offense. Criminalizing being Poor is a punishment to the homeless.
Click to expand...

Cinder blocks and bananas. ;)
 
danielpalos said:
lol. Knowledge of words. Yes, that is what it means. You don't know what it means.
Click to expand...

You cannot read the meaning of the constitution by modern usage of words. You have to understand what the words meant at the time it was written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom