|
Plus isn't being able to buy what you want considered free market capitalism? Isn't forcing them to buy certain things more government regulations which, if I recall correctly, are the antithesis of conservative philosophy?
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
tek79 posted:It's a bunch of lobster tails and a couple of Porterhouse steaks, paid for with food stamps. It ties into the whole "food stamp recipients can't buy anything nice for themselves" argument, as well as abuse of the system arguments. In this case it turned out that the receipt is legit and he was trying to resell what he bought with food stamps for a profit. The guy got caught and is facing 5 years. Shouldn't conservatives love this? This person is bootstrapping themselves out of poverty using the free market!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
Wasn't there some conservative shithead student that applied for food stamps and spent all of it on filet mignon or something to prove a point? And the only reason he qualified was because his parents paid his tuition so he didn't have to actually get a job? I remember reading his column about it and wanting to find out where he lived so I could punch him in the face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
ultimatemike posted:Wasn't there some conservative shithead student that applied for food stamps and spent all of it on filet mignon or something to prove a point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
Back when I was on food stamps I had the best nutrition since living with my parents. I really wish I could afford to get high quality foods on a regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
I think there are some ways to spin it to wrap Conservative's own logic around themselves, but sadly the Fwd:FWD:Fwd: crowd aren't exactly mental chess players so I don't know how worth it would be to point it out to them. The extent they actually care about things like this are how much manufactured rage they can generate towards poors/minorities for a quick high. Nuance and an objective viewpoints be damned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
Whenever I get a stupid FW:FW: DEATH/TYRANNY! email I usually just refer the senders to Snopes, but now they're even trying to take that away from me:FW: Snopes exposed again! posted:We-l-l-l-l now, I guess the time has come to check out Snopes!�
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
quote:I think you should not trust in the arm of flesh! This sounds vaguely biblical but I've never heard the expression before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:Whenever I get a stupid FW:FW: DEATH/TYRANNY! email I usually just refer the senders to Snopes, but now they're even trying to take that away from me: Which, of course, is debunked at Snopes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
tek79 posted:I think there are some ways to spin it to wrap Conservative's own logic around themselves, but sadly the Fwd:FWD:Fwd: crowd aren't exactly mental chess players so I don't know how worth it would be to point it out to them. The extent they actually care about things like this are how much manufactured rage they can generate towards poors/minorities for a quick high. Nuance and an objective viewpoints be damned. Maybe something about how we don't drug test Wall Street executives who get bailouts or oil executives who recieve subsidies, or say they can't pay themselves ridiculous bonusus whilebthey lay off employees, and they actually hurt people when they play fast and loose with their (other peoples') money. Basically, tell them that they are arguing for BIG GOVERNMENT INTRUSION in the personal lives of many poor people who suffered because of the wrecking of the economy, saying that we should micromanage each cent they spend, and then point out the hypocrisy of how after this, they scream HitlerStalin when Obama makes the slightest half-hearted statement about trying to prevent those who profited from wrecking the economy from doing it again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
Sock on a Fish posted:Even if he wasn't engaging in fraud, if someone did blow their monthly food allowance on luxuries, they'd be suffering the consequences for the rest of the month. Why would a conservative have a problem with that? Shouldn't they just be smugly looking down on the dumb grasshopper that forgot to store food for the winter or whatever? Because they miss that second part. They assume this is a regular thing actually and not that he just blew his entire food budget on a week's worth of food.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 03:56
|
|
|
quote:And did you know that the Progressive Insurance ads on TV are cute, but also Yes, the company was deviously founded 34 years before Obama was even born to help prepare the way for his socialist takeover.  Seriously, there is no reasoning with these people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 04:22
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Because they miss that second part. They assume this is a regular thing actually and not that he just blew his entire food budget on a week's worth of food. I think many just believe that people using it are committing outright fraud every day. Maybe it's not that the conservative is missing the second part, but they just think the welfare queen has enough money to get by anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
nsaP posted:I think many just believe that people using it are committing outright fraud every day. Maybe it's not that the conservative is missing the second part, but they just think the welfare queen has enough money to get by anyway. There are 45 million Americans on food stamps, which is about 1 in 7. It's scary to think that the majority of them need that handout just to feed themselves. It's much more attractive to believe that America is still great, but there are millions of leeches who are just too lazy to work. Cases like the lottery winner who manages to keep claiming food stamps make some people assume that that's the norm because they don't want to believe that America could fail normal working people that badly, or that they should have to pay one red cent to help support the nation. It's the same argument with EBT, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, or any program that benefits the unfortunate -- if they had just been better people, like me, they wouldn't need the help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 10:38
|
|
|
Also people literally believe that poor people should have no luxuries or nice food or any entertainment at all; things like Xboxes or mobile phones or steaks are only allowed once you get a job. Poor people's lives should be filled with endless boredom and drudgery, maybe that'll stop them being lazy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 12:02
|
|
|
The best part is that a lot of times, people on food stamps are employed. But their corporate overlords are so cruel as to not pay a living wage. My mom, who's mentioned welfare queens before, just recently had a conversation with me about my cousin who can't find full time work at a grocery chain he's worked at for years. Then she is flabbergasted that most of the people including much of the management isn't even considered "full time" so they don't have to give benefits. "It's terrible." She says. But for some reason people can't connect opinions like the first one with the second one and come to any kind of rational thought. The only moral abortion is my abortion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:Whenever I get a stupid FW:FW: DEATH/TYRANNY! email I usually just refer the senders to Snopes, but now they're even trying to take that away from me: Do people still not understand that it's the Solicitor General's job to defend the government in all those cases?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 18:37
|
|
|
Grem posted:Do people still not understand that it's the Solicitor General's job to defend the government in all those cases? Correct. They do not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 18:38
|
|
|
Grem posted:Do people still not understand that it's the Solicitor General's job to defend the government in all those cases? And logically, the Solicitor General is likely to be the most competent person that they can find, and thus the most likely to be appointed to the SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
I know Sarah Palin well both philosophically and her record as Mayor of Wasilla. The bottom line is that she is a typical Republican in many ways. She is conflicted with a contradictory mindset that both openly values freedom and rejects it . I can think of many examples. The very best thing she ever said was that the government should be minimized and ?...if my father has to lose his job in the process that's too bad.? In context this means that she believes in the Republican line of "Limited government" and her father who was a high mucky muck in the state bureaucracy at the time, might have to lose his job. However talk is cheap. As mayor of Wasilla she presided over a very fat income from the taxpayers who were forced to pay a 2% local tax to start up a police department which Wasilla did not have in 1993. The police department was started and she was an early and vocal backer of the department and the tax to pay for it. When we objected that it would be abused and the tax would then be used for all sorts of government additions, she and others denied this. Under her mayorship our objection happened! The City of Wasilla had so much EXTRA money beyond the cost of the Police Department that Sarah and others created a Wasilla Sports Complex with taxpayer money! That means that her desire to see her kids play hockey all year around trumped other tax payers who wanted to mind their own business! When Sarah ran for governor a friend of mine who knows better told me he was going to vote for her. I was incredulous! Why I asked. He said all the others are too corrupt and she is so new at this political game that we will probably have at least four years before Juneau corrupts her! He had a point! Sarah was a soccer mom for years. She has two political points in her favor, at least in Alaska. She is very photogenic and knows how to use the cameras to her advantage. And she is a genuine backer of the Second Amendment. On the other hand she knows next to nothing about economics. I once went to her office when she was mayor and showed her a very thick book called "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. This book is an exciting novel about what would happen in America if the Middle Class started shooting back against government goons from the various agencies that regularly conduct raids against innocent people for minor infractions of bureaucratic rules. When it first came out people were comparing it to "Atlas Shrugged" in importance to understanding freedom and how precarious it is in America right now. It's 811 pages of guns, sex, philosophy and one author's view of why we are in the present situation of where our rights are being withdrawn by the government itself, mostly true believing Republican NEO-CONS. Sarah bought the book from me. But I sensed that she did so only to get rid of me and my enthusiasm for the book. I never saw any evidence that she ever read it. Finally, whether or not she ACTUALLY believes it or not, she is a very active Christian and uses THAT card openly to draw in the Far Right Religious crowd to vote for her. She does prayer Breakfasts. It worked. I believe she won the governorship not because she had any great knowledge or experience with politics. She was a mayor of a very small town near Anchorage with a nice figure and face and looks on the naive side. Her opponents were known crooks. She was classic example of the lesser of two evils. Oddly, she ran for governor on a program of CHANGE! WE NEED CHANGE! Like Obama now who is also using this word, she never informed us of what CHANGE she had in mind! Since she has been governor of Alaska, she did good: She immediately sold the former governor's expensive jet, getting it off the books and the backs of taxpayers. And she did BAD: She backed the passage of new taxes on the oil industry on the North Slope as if that would help them create new oil at lower prices!!! And she backed a bill that would create a government financed or backed Gas Pipeline from the North Slope to Markets. We advised her to back off this kind of state management or ownership of large industrial plants giving her many many examples of super government programs that were economic disasters and cost Alaska taxpayers literally billions of dollars. Sarah rolled her eyes at this advice and forged ahead. She does not fully understand the horrible results of government ownership and control of parts of the economy! She would SAY she is not a socialist but she DOES socialist programs as governor. She has not been caught yet in any government corruption. Give her time. Give her billions of dollars to play with that she does not own but CONTROLS. The temptations of power are hugely seductive. Lacking a truly well understood integration of how human liberty, private ownership and the free market are all NECESSARY to each other, how one stands on the other, she blunders from one ill-conceived government plan to another. Her advisors are second rate and can do no better than she. In a way she is a true example of America and its MIXED economy, part free market and part government. She is a modern Republican who has all but abandoned most of the libertarian elements of being a Republican even as little as 60 years ago. Lacking the necessary philosophical ideas in her head to guide her in action, she will be a very malleable, young and ATTRACTIVE side kick for John McCain. Good for him, BAD for us. But should they win! And should McCain die, we would have a political child as President of the US. She would do much as the very symbol of the Nanny State to ratchet our few remaining freedoms away in the name of security. I believe this is not an exaggeration but backed by what she has said and done as Mayor of Wasilla, and as Governor of Alaska.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
the posted:Plus isn't being able to buy what you want considered free market capitalism? Isn't forcing them to buy certain things more government regulations which, if I recall correctly, are the antithesis of conservative philosophy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:
The only way I could respect Palin less is if she had read and enjoyed Unintended Consequences There was a fantastic Let's Read! about this piece of wanktastic "patriot fiction"/Neo-Turner Diaries in TFR a couple of years ago. The thread is  personified. Take a look if you've got some time to kill. A taste (talking about the assassination of Bobby Kennedy and the tool Sirhan used to do it):quote:"We'll be shooting BB guns before it's all over, if the sons-of-bitches in Washington have their way. That loving Ay-rab. With a goddamned starter's pistol..." Max left the sentence unfinished. The weapon Sirhan had actually used was an H&R, and Max knew it, but his disgust was quite plain. The idea of an American figure and his Secret Service protectors being bested by a Middle-Eastern street punk with a weapon of only slightly better quality than the blank guns used at track meets was something Max Collins found much more offensive than the basic concept of killing a public servant. edit: You need archives to read the thread. Eat This Glob fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jun 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Being able to buy what you want with your own money is considered free market capitalism. Being able to buy what you want with government money isn't, really. Isn't government money our money anyway since we supply it with taxes? I'm so confused.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
the posted:Isn't government money our money anyway since we supply it with taxes? I'm so confused. It's no more yours after you pay your taxes than the money you give to the barista when you buy a coffee. Yes, the public can have input on how tax money is allocated, but once it's been submitted it no longer the property of individuals. ninja edit: left out a word or two.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
Eat This Glob posted:The only way I could respect Palin less is if she had read and enjoyed Unintended Consequences There was a fantastic Let's Read! about this piece of wanktastic "patriot fiction"/Neo-Turner Diaries in TFR a couple of years ago. The thread is In an amazing coincidence, the author of that email is personified as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 22:05
|
|
|
I need to start a restaurant chain in the US that serves nothing but gruel and then I'll lobby Congress to make sure you can't buy anything but gruel with foodstamps. It'll be an easy political sell. I'll be so rich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I need to start a restaurant chain in the US that serves nothing but gruel and then I'll lobby Congress to make sure you can't buy anything but gruel with foodstamps. It'll be an easy political sell. I'll be so rich. Yes but then you'll live in a paradoxical world. If you vote republican, unemployment will go up so you'll get richer but food stamps will be cut so you'll get poorer. If you vote democrat, unemployment will go down so you'll get poorer. Take your chances with the Gop I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I need to start a restaurant chain in the US that serves nothing but gruel and then I'll lobby Congress to make sure you can't buy anything but gruel with foodstamps. It'll be an easy political sell. I'll be so rich. Paradoxically, you can use a similar argument against them in regard to their logic regarding smoking and tobacco bans. Since people live longer if they don't smoke, smoking is actually GOOD for the government because then people don't live to collect as much social security. (I am not making this up. Seriously, I'm not.) Using this same logic, we should give poor people all the horribly rich, yummy food they want so they will get fat - then they will die sooner and... the government will be better off because they won't collect so much social security as well as will collect fewer food benefits because they won't live as long. Or we could create some kind of financial instrument that would place a bet on their longevity as a function of welfare status and hibbetyasdfghionsdf!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
Sock on a Fish posted:Even if he wasn't engaging in fraud, if someone did blow their monthly food allowance on luxuries, they'd be suffering the consequences for the rest of the month. Why would a conservative have a problem with that? Shouldn't they just be smugly looking down on the dumb grasshopper that forgot to store food for the winter or whatever? I think the implication is that people on food stamps can afford to eat like that regularly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
AKA Pseudonym posted:I think the implication is that people on food stamps can afford to eat like that regularly. Ignoring the fact that the entire list is 8 meals. Two and one third days of meals. No veggies or sides, just steak and lobster. A queen would eat steak and lobster her entire life, a welfare queen eats steak and lobster for less than half a week out of an entire month worth of food stamps. Surely something to get up in arms about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:In an amazing coincidence, the author of that email is If you or anyone gets around to reading that thread until the end, he actually bought an account to defend the book here after TFR absolutely starched him over his terrible prose and his political views.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
Grem posted:Ignoring the fact that the entire list is 8 meals. Two and one third days of meals. No veggies or sides, just steak and lobster. A queen would eat steak and lobster her entire life, a welfare queen eats steak and lobster for less than half a week out of an entire month worth of food stamps. Surely something to get up in arms about. Your problem is that you're thinking this through. You're supposed to just see the trappings of luxury (STEAKLOBSTERCADILLAC) and fly into a rage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Because they miss that second part. They assume this is a regular thing actually and not that he just blew his entire food budget on a week's worth of food. What's important when deciding whether or not things are a problem worth looking into has a lot to do with pervasiveness. I was talking with a coworker the other day about EBT and I asked him how much money he thought most EBT recipients got in a month to spend. He admitted he wasn't sure, but figured it was "like $800". So I decided to look into it (and a few other associated bits of information): Average EBT payout? $101 per person, and $227 per household. Maximum Payout for a Family of Four? $668 per month [payout varies depending on earnings etc.] Benefits DO carry over into the next month [many complain about EBT spending because they think "if they don't spend it it goes away so they just waste my tax money"]. Average Gross Income of Families on EBT? $673 / month  70% of participants in EBT are expected to buy some of their food with their own money.49% of people who benefit from EBT are children under age 18. Requirements for EBT: Less than $2,000 in countable resources, income below $2,389 per month for a family of four, and most able adults must meet work requirements. Hoooo boy, living the good life. So good that if you and your significant other make more than $7.47 an hour and both work 40 hour work weeks you'll be making too much money to qualify. Or $9.95 an hour with part time 30 hour work weeks. Oh and you can't save up more than $2,000 in the bank. Save up to buy a used car? Good luck. Health insurance? You probably can't make enough money in the month to pay for your rent and health insurance premiums. The info is important because it means trying to restrict what people can buy on foodstamps is a stupid waste of money for the most part. If 2 in 3 recipients are going to spend their own money on food already and you suddenly say that people can't use EBT on soda or candy they'll just use their cash portion of their earnings instead on that. Meanwhile enforcing such a ban and restrictions costs money to implement, track and prosecute. Not to mention that there is no strong research to indicate that recipients of EBT benefits choose worse than the average consumer (actually less likely to buy sweets [61.6% vs. 72.1% avg] and salty snacks [29.6% vs. 36.5% avg] than the average consumer). But hey, don't want someone living at poverty level to have a loving snickers bar.
Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Jun 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
Eat This Glob posted:If you or anyone gets around to reading that thread until the end, he actually bought an account to defend the book here after TFR absolutely starched him over his terrible prose and his political views. Guess I'll have to pony up for archives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 06:05
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Guess I'll have to pony up for archives. No lie, that was the thread I bought it for. Well worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 06:25
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Average EBT payout? $101 per person, and $227 per household. Heh, I did a research essay on Food Stamps (and Soda, the whole New York thing). I recognize those stats! I recall the USDA report also saying that people who were Food Stamp recipients also were more likely to shop around and use coupons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 06:48
|
|
|
Grem posted:Ignoring the fact that the entire list is 8 meals. Two and one third days of meals. No veggies or sides, just steak and lobster. A queen would eat steak and lobster her entire life, a welfare queen eats steak and lobster for less than half a week out of an entire month worth of food stamps. Surely something to get up in arms about. I don't think it's well understood that that's a entire month's worth. You're supposed to assume that as well as buying whatever else they're also making weekly steak and lobster runs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 11:56
|
|
|
JD Brickmeister posted:Paradoxically, you can use a similar argument against them in regard to their logic regarding smoking and tobacco bans. Since people live longer if they don't smoke, smoking is actually GOOD for the government because then people don't live to collect as much social security. (I am not making this up. Seriously, I'm not.) A lot of poor people in first world countries are actually fat not because they eat too much, but because they eat lovely food because it's all they can afford.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 14:59
|
|
|
This piece of spam from the "Washington Times" caught my eye. Title: "Sarah -- the smartest kid in the class? You betcha!"The Robbins Report posted:Sarah Palin's critics routinely mock her intellect, so when the state of Alaska released 24,000 emails she wrote while serving as governor, "AOL Weird News," an offbeat component of AOL.com, had a representative sample analyzed to see how well she wrote. They expected the results to confirm their anti-Palin bias, but they were in for a surprise. The Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level is an algorithm that arbitrarily measures word length.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
Enjoy posted:The Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level is an algorithm that arbitrarily measures word length. Hahahaha that's fantastic. From Wikipedia: "The sentence, "The Australian platypus is seemingly a hybrid of a mammal and reptilian creature" is a 13.1." 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 02:54
|
|