Obama: Food Stamp Disgrace

[quote]StevenF wrote:
I personally know a family where the husband is in the Navy and the wife goes to school while other people raise their 4 kids. They tried to get food assistance and I believe were successful, not sure though. The guy makes probably 3x as much money than I do. They have no qualms about buying under armour clothes for their 4yr old boy, though. My girlfriend’s white trash sister’s white trash husband is receiving social security benefits even though he is capable of working. Meanwhile, I work on average 60 to 70 hours a week to take care of my 2 kids while my girlfriend finishes her schooling. No help whatsoever from uncle Sam and to be frank, I don’t want or need it
. I feel we would just be contributing to the problem which is relying on the government to support us. [/quote]

If you know of people that are receiving benefits that are not qualified you should report them. Otherwise you bear some of the blame.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
'The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014.

Spending for the program, not including administrative costs, rose to $72 billion in 2011, up from $30 billion four years earlier. The CBO projected that one in seven U.S. residents received food stamps last year.

It estimated that 34 million people, or 1 in 10 U.S. residents, would receive SNAP benefits in 2022 “and SNAP expenditures, at about $73 billion, will be among the highest of all non-health-related federal support programs for low-income households.”[/quote]

You are not American, what is your worry?[/quote]

Like whomever is elected President does not impact the rest of the world?[/quote]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I will remember this.[/quote]

Only if your retention ability has vastly improved.

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
'The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014.

Spending for the program, not including administrative costs, rose to $72 billion in 2011, up from $30 billion four years earlier. The CBO projected that one in seven U.S. residents received food stamps last year.

It estimated that 34 million people, or 1 in 10 U.S. residents, would receive SNAP benefits in 2022 “and SNAP expenditures, at about $73 billion, will be among the highest of all non-health-related federal support programs for low-income households.”[/quote]

You are not American, what is your worry?[/quote]

Like whomever is elected President does not impact the rest of the world?[/quote]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I will remember this.[/quote]

Beat me to it Mak
[/quote]

You’re not a bad guy be careful about the company that you keep.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You’re not a bad guy be careful about the company that you keep. [/quote]

Hahaha cheers

WRT to the poster who says they know people screwing the system, report them.A person along our street a few years back were claiming DLA (Disability Living allowance)… and he ran a marathon. Was taken to court and fined a lot of money.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What do you think the biggest problem facing our country is right now?[/quote]

Obama!

And I’m not going for a laugh. The man is a horrible President and he needs to lose in November. From constantly threatening to raise taxes in these economic troubling times to disrespecting Israel, to running up 4 trillion more in debt which is more than the previous three republican Presidents combined! I could continue just about everything he’s touched from the supposed economic stimulus to the disastrous health care bill which hands over control of your health the US government –

Obama is a train wreck as president! And I guarantee that if he is reelected we will fall into another, much deeper, recession as he raises taxes on every tax paying American by 5% when he allows the Bush tax cuts to expire.

And those that say there is no difference between Obama and Romney absolutely do NOT know what they’re talking about. They’ve fallen for the liberal media lie. Which has been promoted to keep republicans from voting in November.

The NYT and CNN have both described her as liberal. But if you don’t believe them the Judge has described herself as a liberal. And so far every case she has decided on the SC she has sided with liberals. Liberalism does not work in any of the three branches of government. There have been far too many examples of its failure over the past 60 years for this to even be in question any longer.

President George Bush (41) was far too liberal for my tastes. And in 1992, (most likely as political pay back) he appointed Sotomayor to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. He further proved his liberal leanings in appointing Justice David Souter to the Supreme court. This woman is a liberal nightmare waiting to explode.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
'The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014.

Spending for the program, not including administrative costs, rose to $72 billion in 2011, up from $30 billion four years earlier. The CBO projected that one in seven U.S. residents received food stamps last year.

It estimated that 34 million people, or 1 in 10 U.S. residents, would receive SNAP benefits in 2022 “and SNAP expenditures, at about $73 billion, will be among the highest of all non-health-related federal support programs for low-income households.”[/quote]

You are not American, what is your worry?[/quote]

Like whomever is elected President does not impact the rest of the world?[/quote]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I will remember this.[/quote]

That is why I wrote it. I do not want to get into a big argument but, every time there is a thread on US policy and a foreigner gives there opinion if it is a liberal stance he/she gets bombarded with “Where in the US do you live”, “Are you American?”, or some dig on their country of origin. However, if the stance is against democrats/liberals or Obama they are welcomed with open arms.

Sex Machine is an Irishman living in Australia, yet if you look at his posts they are almost all on US policy, social issues, economics what is the fascination?

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

I do not want to get into a big argument but, every time there is a thread on US policy and a foreigner gives there opinion if it is a liberal stance he/she gets bombarded with “Where in the US do you live”, “Are you American?”, or some dig on their country of origin.
[/quote]

And that’s the way it should be. Nativism is healthy in a society.

I think it’s to do with people being more receptive to posts from someone who actually likes America and Americans. Euro-trash libs are usually peaking out from under the U.S. missile shield to spit venom about U.S. “imperialism” and “war crimes” and what have you.

[quote]
Sex Machine is an Irishman living in Australia, yet if you look at his posts they are almost all on US policy, social issues, economics what is the fascination?[/quote]

No, no, no. SexMachine is an Australian of Irish descent. And the United States is the greatest nation in the history of mankind. That’s the fascination.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
the United States is the greatest nation in the history of mankind. That’s the fascination.[/quote]

You do speak the truth…

The thing is this, this administration and I think the last have been pushing to get as many people on food stamps as they could, by advertising their program and guess what, they were successful.

Also, greatest nation in the history of mankind?

Absolutely speaking yes, but that is cheating.

Relatively speaking, oh please, God no…

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? [/quote]

FTR…you are correct aboutmuch of the media; however…
I believe if you look into it you will find there was a greater increase in those receiving public assistance under the Bush administration than there has been during Obama’s. The Obama admistration has also arrested and deported almost twice as many illegals during his first three years than Bush did during any three year term while he was in office.

[/quote]

I have no idea as to the validity of those claims. My point is that the average person only knows what he sees in the media. And that’s one reason why Obama still has fairly high favorablity ratings. This guy has failed in just about every measure of what a good President should be. But, the media is still drooling over him and will not stop until he’s reelected. Romney has an uphill climb. If he does get some traction (which I feel he will) the media will attempt to sabotage his campaign by either harping on his religion or some other unrelated nonsense which will drive his numbers down.
[/quote]

While I might not agree it has reached the point of drooling, I do recognize the ‘benefit of the doubt’ when I see it and think the manner in which much of the media ‘angles’ the news is total bullshit. Although there has always been opinion news, I am old enough to remember a time when ‘objective’ reporting was respected. It has been quit a while since we have had a successful President. IMO Obama is not going to change the trend. I could make a pretty good arguement that there isn’t any substantial difference between Obama & Romney, but I know you are a ‘lesser of two evils’ guy, a position I take no issue with. [/quote]

There really isn’t a substantial difference between Obama and Romney. Both support big government and that’s all-around not cool with me.[/quote]

And that’s the type of attitude that the democrats want you to have.

As Governor Mitt Romney lowered taxes 19 times in Massachusetts!

He’s promised to end Obamacare and there’s no reason that he won’t do that as well. No upside for him in keeping it he needs the conservative base in 2016.

And as far as appointing Judges we won’t see the disgusting likes of Sotomayor under Romney.

We will also respect Israel once again…

If you don’t think that there are substantial differences between Obama and Romney you have not looked what you’ve done is swallow the liberal lie that the press and the dems want you to believe. Romney is light years better than Obama![/quote]

I’m still voting for Romney, most likely. Don’t get me wrong, the guy has good qualities. I suppose my biggest issue is that “small government” conservative-wannabes keep lying to themselves when it comes to social issues. A government that outlaws contraception, pornography, abortion, and gay marraige cannot be classified as a small goverment … just like a government that raises taxes, promotes Obamacare, and becomes a nanny state.

PS - Not saying that Romney is going to outlaw those things, but Santorum was all about it. We can’t pretend like social conservatism equates to small goverment. It’s just another form of special interests.

[quote]njrusmc wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is a perfect example of a pro Obama media. Can you imagine if that many more people collected food stamps when GW Bush were President? [/quote]

FTR…you are correct aboutmuch of the media; however…
I believe if you look into it you will find there was a greater increase in those receiving public assistance under the Bush administration than there has been during Obama’s. The Obama admistration has also arrested and deported almost twice as many illegals during his first three years than Bush did during any three year term while he was in office.

[/quote]

I have no idea as to the validity of those claims. My point is that the average person only knows what he sees in the media. And that’s one reason why Obama still has fairly high favorablity ratings. This guy has failed in just about every measure of what a good President should be. But, the media is still drooling over him and will not stop until he’s reelected. Romney has an uphill climb. If he does get some traction (which I feel he will) the media will attempt to sabotage his campaign by either harping on his religion or some other unrelated nonsense which will drive his numbers down.
[/quote]

While I might not agree it has reached the point of drooling, I do recognize the ‘benefit of the doubt’ when I see it and think the manner in which much of the media ‘angles’ the news is total bullshit. Although there has always been opinion news, I am old enough to remember a time when ‘objective’ reporting was respected. It has been quit a while since we have had a successful President. IMO Obama is not going to change the trend. I could make a pretty good arguement that there isn’t any substantial difference between Obama & Romney, but I know you are a ‘lesser of two evils’ guy, a position I take no issue with. [/quote]

There really isn’t a substantial difference between Obama and Romney. Both support big government and that’s all-around not cool with me.[/quote]

And that’s the type of attitude that the democrats want you to have.

As Governor Mitt Romney lowered taxes 19 times in Massachusetts!

He’s promised to end Obamacare and there’s no reason that he won’t do that as well. No upside for him in keeping it he needs the conservative base in 2016.

And as far as appointing Judges we won’t see the disgusting likes of Sotomayor under Romney.

We will also respect Israel once again…

If you don’t think that there are substantial differences between Obama and Romney you have not looked what you’ve done is swallow the liberal lie that the press and the dems want you to believe. Romney is light years better than Obama![/quote]

I’m still voting for Romney, most likely. Don’t get me wrong, the guy has good qualities. I suppose my biggest issue is that “small government” conservative-wannabes keep lying to themselves when it comes to social issues. A government that outlaws contraception, pornography, abortion, and gay marraige cannot be classified as a small goverment … just like a government that raises taxes, promotes Obamacare, and becomes a nanny state.

PS - Not saying that Romney is going to outlaw those things, but Santorum was all about it. We can’t pretend like social conservatism equates to small goverment. It’s just another form of special interests.[/quote]

Actually, the dems tried to make more hay than there was over Santorum’s remarks. He was absolutely NOT talking about outlawing condoms. Anyway, it’s irrelevant as Romney will be the nominee and no one has ever accused him being against condoms. How silly anyway how would a President even begin to try to outlaw condoms? He’d be laughed out of office!

^I’m not sure about that. He felt the states should be free to ban them, but without Federal influence. His 2005 book about Catholic values was not exactly appealing to 2/3 of American women with full-time jobs. I admit, the guy had some big hairy balls to publish stuff like that in the 21st century, and I respect him for his views. But I do not trust that he wouldn’t wield his power as president to force those views on us.

There are some seriously extreme right-wing bible-beaters who would love that. Not enough for him to get elected, but the fact that he made it as far as he did really worried me. Quite frankly, I would consider keeping Obama in office (and paying outrageous taxes) than seeing a nut like Santorum accept communion on Capitol Hill. He doesn’t like that I have sex with women for pleasure? Sorry dude, but don’t care to hear him talking about that at a political rally.

[quote]njrusmc wrote:

^I’m not sure about that. He felt the states should be free to ban them, but without Federal influence.

[/quote]

He also said the states have the right to ban sodomy. He also said that he would not personally vote for such a ban. It was a specific question on states’ rights. State legislatures have the right to ban coffee as well. I admit that. Does that mean I want to ban coffee? It was in answer to a question on federalism. Don’t you believe in upholding the Constitution?

My issue is this. The guy says “I am strongly against A, B, and C on a personal level. I think the states should have the right to ban these things. Oh but trust me I won’t use my federal influence to ban these things. I promise!”

He’s a politician. Tread lightly. I agree the states should be able to ban A, B, and C … but knowing that Santorum despised such things as a function of his religion does not sit well with me.

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
^I’m not sure about that. He felt the states should be free to ban them, but without Federal influence. His 2005 book about Catholic values was not exactly appealing to 2/3 of American women with full-time jobs. I admit, the guy had some big hairy balls to publish stuff like that in the 21st century, and I respect him for his views. But I do not trust that he wouldn’t wield his power as president to force those views on us.

There are some seriously extreme right-wing bible-beaters who would love that. Not enough for him to get elected, but the fact that he made it as far as he did really worried me. Quite frankly, I would consider keeping Obama in office (and paying outrageous taxes) than seeing a nut like Santorum accept communion on Capitol Hill. He doesn’t like that I have sex with women for pleasure? Sorry dude, but don’t care to hear him talking about that at a political rally.[/quote]

Agreed 100%. I was trying to think of a hypothetical person to run as a democrat that right wingers would dislike as much as we do Santorum but for opposite reasons, but nothing comes to mind. Any ideas? And no its not Obama, it would have to be some Atheist with a clear anti-Christian agenda.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
^I’m not sure about that. He felt the states should be free to ban them, but without Federal influence. His 2005 book about Catholic values was not exactly appealing to 2/3 of American women with full-time jobs. I admit, the guy had some big hairy balls to publish stuff like that in the 21st century, and I respect him for his views. But I do not trust that he wouldn’t wield his power as president to force those views on us.

There are some seriously extreme right-wing bible-beaters who would love that. Not enough for him to get elected, but the fact that he made it as far as he did really worried me. Quite frankly, I would consider keeping Obama in office (and paying outrageous taxes) than seeing a nut like Santorum accept communion on Capitol Hill. He doesn’t like that I have sex with women for pleasure? Sorry dude, but don’t care to hear him talking about that at a political rally.[/quote]

Agreed 100%. I was trying to think of a hypothetical person to run as a democrat that right wingers would dislike as much as we do Santorum but for opposite reasons, but nothing comes to mind. Any ideas? And no its not Obama, it would have to be some Atheist with a clear anti-Christian agenda.[/quote]

Yes, actually it is Obama. Check his voting record, he is actually more liberal than Santorum is conservative!

But, the media forgot to vett him and his “hope and change” campaign was brilliant, so we got stuck with him. Obama is THE most liberal President to ever be elected.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
^I’m not sure about that. He felt the states should be free to ban them, but without Federal influence. His 2005 book about Catholic values was not exactly appealing to 2/3 of American women with full-time jobs. I admit, the guy had some big hairy balls to publish stuff like that in the 21st century, and I respect him for his views. But I do not trust that he wouldn’t wield his power as president to force those views on us.

There are some seriously extreme right-wing bible-beaters who would love that. Not enough for him to get elected, but the fact that he made it as far as he did really worried me. Quite frankly, I would consider keeping Obama in office (and paying outrageous taxes) than seeing a nut like Santorum accept communion on Capitol Hill. He doesn’t like that I have sex with women for pleasure? Sorry dude, but don’t care to hear him talking about that at a political rally.[/quote]

Agreed 100%. I was trying to think of a hypothetical person to run as a democrat that right wingers would dislike as much as we do Santorum but for opposite reasons, but nothing comes to mind. Any ideas? And no its not Obama, it would have to be some Atheist with a clear anti-Christian agenda.[/quote]

Yes, actually it is Obama. Check his voting record, he is actually more liberal than Santorum is conservative!

But, the media forgot to vett him and his “hope and change” campaign was brilliant, so we got stuck with him. Obama is THE most liberal President to ever be elected.

[/quote]

So liberal that he deferred to the Pakistanis and Osama Bin Laden is still safe to wreak havoc through Al-Qaeda.

Obama’s foreign policy is little different from a Republican presidency.

Why he got the idiotic ‘Peace Prize’ I will never know.

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
^I’m not sure about that. He felt the states should be free to ban them, but without Federal influence. His 2005 book about Catholic values was not exactly appealing to 2/3 of American women with full-time jobs. I admit, the guy had some big hairy balls to publish stuff like that in the 21st century, and I respect him for his views. But I do not trust that he wouldn’t wield his power as president to force those views on us.

There are some seriously extreme right-wing bible-beaters who would love that. Not enough for him to get elected, but the fact that he made it as far as he did really worried me. Quite frankly, I would consider keeping Obama in office (and paying outrageous taxes) than seeing a nut like Santorum accept communion on Capitol Hill. He doesn’t like that I have sex with women for pleasure? Sorry dude, but don’t care to hear him talking about that at a political rally.[/quote]

Agreed 100%. I was trying to think of a hypothetical person to run as a democrat that right wingers would dislike as much as we do Santorum but for opposite reasons, but nothing comes to mind. Any ideas? And no its not Obama, it would have to be some Atheist with a clear anti-Christian agenda.[/quote]

Yes, actually it is Obama. Check his voting record, he is actually more liberal than Santorum is conservative!

But, the media forgot to vett him and his “hope and change” campaign was brilliant, so we got stuck with him. Obama is THE most liberal President to ever be elected.

[/quote]

So liberal that he deferred to the Pakistanis and Osama Bin Laden is still safe to wreak havoc through Al-Qaeda.

Obama’s foreign policy is little different from a Republican presidency.

Why he got the idiotic ‘Peace Prize’ I will never know.
[/quote]

You’re not thinking Bambi. My comments were about how liberal he was and still got elected. Just as others attack Santorum for being conservative. I was comparing the two. When someone is elected to the Presidency the first thing that we notice is that foreign policy wise they tend to drift toward the middle.

As for Obama being liberal he did push through the most gigantic government take over of individual rights in the history of the country–National Health Care. And as for running up the debt the 4 trillion he’s added in only 3 1/2 years is more than the past three republican Presidents COMBINED!

So yeah he’s still quite liberal and that’s why the country is in the mess it is in. Liberalism does not work. And this can be checked by the number of liberal Governors that any particular state has had over a period of time. For example two states that are in huge trouble california and New York have had more liberal Governors than most any other state.

Coincidence? I think not. In the process of raising taxes and driving business out of their states they get into huge fiscal trouble-- Can you imagine that?

Why anyone would ever vote for a liberal at this stage of the game is for other reasons than they think that he’ll be good for the country.

And that is why the democratic base is now made up of mostly special interest groups.

Liberalism has failed everywhere it’t been tried.

One more point, if you think I’m wrong all you have to do is split up the US by red vs. blue states. The blue states can literally not survive without feeding off the red states.

The jury is in and liberalism has failed!

This is something that your liberal professors failed to tell you. And why? Because they have a lip lock on the public nipple because they are just one more special interest group.

Simple stuff Bambi…

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I agree the states should be able to ban A, B, and C … [/quote]

Only if it doesn’t violate Constitutional rights. Just as you can go too far with federal power, you can go too far with state power. I agree that Santorum saying he has personal beliefs but wants to leave it to the states is just a form of doublespeak.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I agree the states should be able to ban A, B, and C … [/quote]

Only if it doesn’t violate Constitutional rights. Just as you can go too far with federal power, you can go too far with state power. I agree that Santorum saying he has personal beliefs but wants to leave it to the states is just a form of doublespeak. [/quote]

Sort of like a liberal claiming to be against abortion personally but he must support a woman’s right to kill her unborn baby.

Gotta love that…