BGFalcons82;1244266 wrote:Nice twist of the subject. You got that technique down pat. Saul would be proud of a good student. However, you haven't quite gravitated to the part where I'm the mannequin and you get to speak for me.

Here's MORE government intrusion....into a friggin hot dog stand!! http://www.theblaze.com/stories/13-year-old-and-family-behind-mi-hot-dog-stand-now-homeless-and-govt-regs-continue-to-strain-income/

How bout this one: In Virginia, you need a permit to have a birthday party on a farm! AND farmers need special permits to sell their food to Americans. Whatever happened to, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Hollow words these days, eh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1e7Mwjf-QPI

Your youtube videos are red herrings and not what we're talking about. I presume you don't even think food stamps should exist. But, if you had to live in a world where they do exist...are you saying that the taxpayers, in this particular instance, shouldn't attempt to place limits on what the snap card can be used to buy?

gut;1244276 wrote:They're entitled to food, not necessarily good food. You want to eat steak, go out and earn it. I work to earn my small pleasures, and so should everyone. But that's how the system works, but as with any charitable act a "thank you" goes a lot further than bitching about how it's not enough.

I mean, should we really have to pay more to feed someone on welfare vs. someone in prison? Staying out of jail should entitle someone to better free food? @$16/wk for an inmate. The individual SNAP benefit is up to 3X this amount (almost as much as the average American, who has a job and buys all their own food).

what an interesting value system you have. you have a question mark after whether the people receiving assistance should have more spent on feeding them than jailed criminals. who are the majority of people children, the aged and the disabled. A great place for you to save some money. I think money spent to feed these folks is money well spent in a decent society. You would fit very well into an outstanding piece of social commentary.
OLIVER TWIST
Child as he was, he was desperate with hunger, and reckless with misery. He rose from the table; and advancing to the master, basin and spoon in hand, said: somewhat alarmed at his own temerity:
'Please, sir, I want some more.'
GUT was a fat, healthy man; but he turned very pale. He gazed in stupified astonishment on the small rebel for some seconds, and then clung for support to the copper. The assistants were paralysed with wonder; the boys with fear.
'What!' said Gut at length, in a faint voice.
'Please, sir,' replied Oliver, 'I want some more.'
Gut aimed a blow at Oliver's head with the ladle; pinioned him in his arm; and shrieked aloud for the beadle.
The board were sitting in solemn conclave, when Gut rushed into the room in great excitement, and addressing the gentleman in the high chair, said,
'Mr. Limbkins, I beg your pardon, sir! Oliver Twist has asked for more!'
There was a general start. Horror was depicted on every countenance.
'For MORE!' said Mr. Limbkins. 'Compose yourself, Gut , and answer me distinctly. Do I understand that he asked for more, after he had eaten the supper allotted by the dietary?'
'He did, sir,' replied Gut.
'That boy will be hung,' said the gentleman in the white waistcoat. 'I know that boy will be hung.'

cheap food =/= bad food. Just not as tasty. And have you seen some of these prisoners? They wouldn't appear to be suffering from a poor diet. In fact, YES, I would contend that putting children on a prison diet would, in many cases, feed them better (nor does cheap = insufficent quantity). Because, again, being given a handout doesn't mean those children are eating good, balanced meals.

And the number I quoted is for a single adult, so children have nothing to do with it.

gut;1244356 wrote:cheap food =/= bad food. Just not as tasty. And have you seen some of these prisoners? They wouldn't appear to be suffering from a poor diet. In fact, YES, I would contend that putting children on a prison diet would, in many cases, feed them better (nor does cheap = insufficent quantity). Because, again, being given a handout doesn't mean those children are eating good, balanced meals.

And the number I quoted is for a single adult, so children have nothing to do with it.

children are the leading recipients of food programs, that you wish to cut to prisoner levels. you would equate American money allowed to feed these kids with what goes to criminals, unbelieveable. gosh we could put poor kids in cells to, so you can give them the entire prison experience, gosh and the prison uniforms, we could save all kinds of money, which to you is the most important.

BGFalcons82;1244221 wrote:As Ronny used to say, "there you go again". Government meddling begets government regulations, red tape, dictates, mandates, ad infinitum. This is where conservatives and libertarians differ with the Nanny-gang. You know, if they just gave them the cash on a SNAP card and let them spend it, the bureaucracy wouldn't have anything to do....and THAT is what it's all about - control over individual's lives.

I liked it better when Ronny used to say "Nancy, honey, what does the astrologist say I should do tomorrow? Should I fire a bunch of air traffic controllers or concoct some scheme to provide arms to the rebels in Nicaragua?".

Always the actor, Ronny was. Always waiting for his lines to be fed to him like so much pablum.

isadore;1244468 wrote:children are the leading recipients of food programs, that you wish to cut to prisoner levels.

Once again, the comparison was what a single adult gets - children have nothing to do with the data I quoted. Children don't get the SNAP card in most cases, their parents do. Prisoners are neither malnourished nor underfed. Clearly we are capable of feeding people quite well, kids included, for a fraction of the cost of the current SNAP program.

Try as you might, you can't justify a kid costing 2.5X to feed what an adult male in prison costs. You're not protecting the food of the children, you're protecting handouts for beer and cigarettes for the parent.

Well to start with state and federal prison systems have economies of scale in purchase and preparation of food. But even if it was not thers, i find no problem with payin 2.5 times as much to provide food for the elderly, disabled and child than is paid to feed rapists, murderers and jerry sandusky. of course you would prefer the needy handled in the same way we handle the worst in our society.

Like I said, it's never enough with you liberals. It's just take take take and you can't even open your mind to a more efficient and effective program. As I said in the beginning, they are entitled to food, they are not entitled to steak.

Reduce the cost and feed more. How do you like that? Or does that not fit with your agenda?

gut;1244622 wrote:Like I said, it's never enough with you liberals. It's just take take take and you can't even open your mind to a more efficient and effective program. As I said in the beginning, they are entitled to food, they are not entitled to steak.

Reduce the cost and feed more. How do you like that? Or does that not fit with your agenda?

p feed the helpless, the handicapped, the old and the young well is something a decent society should be pay for willingly. but of course on the right it is a place to cut corners, save a some bucks for tax cuts for the rich.

isadore;1244630 wrote:p feed the helpless, the handicapped, the old and the young .

Which of those 4 are you?

superman;1244731 wrote:Which of those 4 are you?

none of the above, just a person who believes our country should aid those in need.

isadore;1244750 wrote:none of the above, just a person who believes our country should aid those in need.

If you are none of the 4, why are we taking care of you?

superman;1244766 wrote:If you are none of the 4, why are we taking care of you?

you are not, i know it is hard for you to believe but someone can advocate government programs that help the needy without being one of them.

isadore;1244797 wrote:you are not, i know it is hard for you to believe but someone can advocate government programs that help the needy without being one of them.

Everyone here knows you don't have a job.

I don't have a job either. Does that put me on your shit list as well?

superman;1244809 wrote:Everyone here knows you don't have a job.

lol, "everyone here knows"

gut;1244276 wrote:They're entitled to food, not necessarily good food. You want to eat steak, go out and earn it. I work to earn my small pleasures, and so should everyone. But that's how the system works, but as with any charitable act a "thank you" goes a lot further than bitching about how it's not enough.

I mean, should we really have to pay more to feed someone on welfare vs. someone in prison? Staying out of jail should entitle someone to better free food? @$16/wk for an inmate. The individual SNAP benefit is up to 3X this amount (almost as much as the average American, who has a job and buys all their own food).

Please link this. I want to study a bit.

Biden: "They're gonna putya all back in chains" ........

http://freebeacon.com/biden-on-romney-theyre-going-to-put-yall-back-in-chains/

He'll stoop to any level; what a loser.

As if he and obama haven't just finished enslaving the next two generations with $6 TRILLION in NEW DEBT. [EMAIL="Fu@$"]Fu@$[/EMAIL] off Joe.

QuakerOats;1246632 wrote:Biden: "They're gonna putya all back in chains" ........

http://freebeacon.com/biden-on-romney-theyre-going-to-put-yall-back-in-chains/

He'll stoop to any level; what a loser.

As if he and obama haven't just finished enslaving the next two generations with $6 TRILLION in NEW DEBT. Fu@$ off Joe.

gosh a ruddies, the true hit on our national debt has come from the reagan and bush jr era tax cuts. they have buried us. and their damage continues.

isadore;1247733 wrote:gosh a ruddies, the true hit on our national debt has come from the reagan and bush jr era tax cuts. they have buried us. and their damage continues.

Reagan was dead over 4 years before Obama was elected. He had not been president in 20 years when Obama took over, yet it is his fault that Obama has a spending problem?

Al Bundy;1248120 wrote:Reagan was dead over 4 years before Obama was elected. He had not been president in 20 years when Obama took over, yet it is his fault that Obama has a spending problem?

Percentage wise, Obama is nowhere near what Reagan's admin did when he tripled the national debt.

As a % of GDP? That's right, Obama crushes Reagan there.

gosh reagan takes the national debt from 30% of gdp to 60%.
clinton knocks it down a little

then bus jr takes it from below 60% to near 90%



http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Looks like Mitt faked some twittrer followers. This count as a lie?

http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/08/mitt-romney-fake-twitter-followers/

Abe Vigoda;1249457 wrote:Looks like Mitt faked some twittrer followers. This count as a lie?

http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/08/mitt-romney-fake-twitter-followers/

Such services allow customers to buy followers for any Twitter account, he stressed, so it's not clear if the fakes were purchased by Romney, his supporters, or his political foes.

You seem to think he did, so go ahead and chalk it up as a lie if it gives you the warm-n-fuzzies.