Maine Governor wants to stop EBT being used for candy/soft drinks

cawacko said:
We are a Christian nation and don't want to see people starving to death on our streets. There are people who take advantage of the system and there are people who work hard but for a couple of bad breaks are in a position where we need help. The reality is the government safety net will never be taken away. The discussion has turned to issues like this one where should people who get government help have choice over what they choose to purchase.
Click to expand...

The government isn't providing the help. The government couldn't distribute a dime unless it first took something from others who do provide for themselves and hand it to those who don't.

If people who demand help don't want to be told what they can and cannot do, don't demand it. It's that simple. If they do demand it, they should STFU when those forced to provide it tell them how to use it.

While there are some who are where they are due to nothing they did, MOST people are where they are in life based on choices they made. The high school dropout that can't make much is there due to a choice he/she made. That they continue to get turned down for jobs isn't a bad break but the result of a choice. The convicted felon that can't get a job isn't unemployable due to bad breaks but a choice he/she made. The drug addict that can't stay sober doesn't stay unemployed by bad breaks but by the choice to use drugs. And the list goes on.

If someone who truly can't work or didn't cause their own problems needs help, I'll help him/her if I deem the need valid. It isn't your place nor the government's place to make that determination. On the flip side, if someone can work but won't or they are in a bad place due to choices they made and said were none of my business when they made those choice, I don't have a problem letting them do without.

The worst part about those supporting people on the government dole having so much freedom and choice when it comes to what they can buy is that they're using money someone else was forced to provide and those forced to provide it don't have the freedom to say no with their own money.
 
should we then just bring back poorhouses and orphanages instead of independent living and subsidizing the indigent and working poor?

I mean if you want to say any gov't subsidies are innately confiscatory -what do you do with the recipients?
 
cawacko said:
Welfare is a blip on the screen compared to the cost of S.S. and Medicaid. If the national debt is a serious issue to you those two issues need to be addressed.
Click to expand...

Yes, I just stated that Medicaid and SSI were part of the problem and are part of entitlement spending.
 
anatta said:
should we then just bring back poorhouses and orphanages instead of independent living and subsidizing the indigent and working poor?

I mean if you want to say any gov't subsidies are innately confiscatory -what do you do with the recipients?
Click to expand...

To use independent living and subsidizing in the same sentence is contradictory. If they are subsidized, they aren't independent.

All government subsidies are confiscatory. Since the government provides no service nor produces any product that make a revenue, the ONLY way they get the money they distribute is to take it from someone. They have no money of their own.

I've made the same suggestion many times but will do it again. If you see a need that you want met, meet it. I'll do the same. I won't tell you who to help and all I ask in return is you do the same and not support forcing people to do it if they say no.
 
It's snacktime said:
Because rana and other liberals are willing serfs.
Click to expand...

I've heard the responses of why from the puppets. They say people won't save and then they won't have anything later in life. I understand that may be true. However, that doesn't, by default, mean the rest of us should be required to be part of it because they make bad choices.
 
anatta said:
that's a pretty big leap to make. There are a lot of factors. Ys here are abuses like where you mentioned "7 kids" ( without means of support other wise).
And I'm certainly no bleeding heart liberal, but it seems to me health care and food are basic human needs( therefore rights)
So you gotta take the good with the bad.
Click to expand...

Well I will tell you this much; the gubment took 450 bucks out of my last pay check to pay for all this entitlement bullshit, and I don't even earn that much.
 
cawacko said:
I know, but welfare does not belong in the same sentence as those two as far as the effects on the debt.
Click to expand...

If you add in the after effects of welfare then it does. IE prisons, judicial system, probation/parole, etc.

Libs like to think the 2 aren't related.
 
cawacko said:
That's just never going to happen.
Click to expand...

Something's got to give. I propose if you can't fund your own kids, have CPS take them away.

You can feed your kids with 19 cents a day. If you can't afford that, then we need to take the kid away.
 
CFM said:
To use independent living and subsidizing in the same sentence is contradictory. If they are subsidized, they aren't independent.

All government subsidies are confiscatory. Since the government provides no service nor produces any product that make a revenue, the ONLY way they get the money they distribute is to take it from someone. They have no money of their own.

I've made the same suggestion many times but will do it again. If you see a need that you want met, meet it. I'll do the same. I won't tell you who to help and all I ask in return is you do the same and not support forcing people to do it if they say no.
Click to expand...
that's in for an individual,but what do you do with the people who's needs are unmet by private charity? They are subsidized so they can live independently

do you want this instead?

Women_mealtime_st_pancras_workhouse.jpg


Winter_in_the_workhouse.jpg
 
Irish said:
If you add in the after effects of welfare then it does. IE prisons, judicial system, probation/parole, etc.

Libs like to think the 2 aren't related.
Click to expand...

No, it's not even close. S.S. and Medicare are almost 50% of the budget. The remainder of those you listed are not all tied to welfare. Hell look at Donald Trump as an example of someone who has constantly used and tied up the legal system.
 
Irish said:
Something's got to give. I propose if you can't fund your own kids, have CPS take them away.

You can feed your kids with 19 cents a day. If you can't afford that, then we need to take the kid away.
Click to expand...

Have CPS take the kids away and have the state raise them? Who do you think is funding that?
 
cawacko said:
Have CPS take the kids away and have the state raise them? Who do you think is funding that?
Click to expand...

It will be cheaper in the long run. If these scum find out they can't get a meal ticket by having 7 kids out of wedlock, they won't do it.
 
Irish said:
It will be cheaper in the long run. If these scum find out they can't get a meal ticket by having 7 kids out of wedlock, they won't do it.
Click to expand...

I'd have to go look at the exact numbers but my understanding is its not economically beneficial for people to have children to get more welfare money like it might have been so more in the past.
 
Irish said:
It will be cheaper in the long run. If these scum find out they can't get a meal ticket by having 7 kids out of wedlock, they won't do it.
Click to expand...

It will be cheaper to the government raise kids than the families themselves? That's like straight out of the left-wing playbook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top