I thought it was limited to certain types of food. Of course I live in a state that is significantly more awesome than <insert your state here>.
Dude, my state would stomp the shit out of your state.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I thought it was limited to certain types of food. Of course I live in a state that is significantly more awesome than <insert your state here>.
We got Sir Mix-a-lot and his posse.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
In Fl, if it is edible you can get it. Salad dressings, marinades, pickles, crystal lite.. you name it. Now, with WIC you (pregos & moms) can only buy certain foods. Dairy me thinks.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I thought it was limited to certain types of food. Of course I live in a state that is significantly more awesome than <insert your state here>.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I think you have known me long enough to know I type exactly what I mean.ATG wrote:
Stop bashing your keyboard and make an attempt at spelling. Ffs.lowing wrote:
Sorry, I sell my skills for compensation nothing is GIVEN to me for nothing in return workers, regardless of employers do not fall into the mooching category, regardless as to how vile you view them.ATG wrote:
No, you are spewing vile horseshit.
Look at it this way; according to the whitehouse website social security will be bk by 2042, just in time for me to retire. Having paid into a system for 26 years that has been ruined by buffoon politicians and parasite union government contract workers I intend to take back as much as I can and pay in as little going forward as possible.
Hey man, this is your system; it is founded in lies and fraud and you will get yours. The ultimate bubble is inflating and you are filling with its hot air. You rely on government contracts and subsidized airlines.
I have been against govt. subsidized airlines, even to my own detriment. CONFIDENT I will be able to find gainful employment elsewhere.
I too will not have SS when I retire. In fact, I have screwed up enough that I will probably never be able to retire. Regardless, I will not be stealing your money or anyone elses. It has alwready been stolen form me. Allow me to be pissed off about that. Or do you think I am someone special that is exempt for the theivery within our govt.?
Also you are not living in ther world of reality if you do not think the US needs a war machine or needs that machine maintained.
Your position has no color and this is not a black and white world. You are attention whoring by taking a outrageous stance.
Also, your attacks on grammar and spelling are beneath you, stick to the context of the post.
so far, all of your arguments against what I post has been,
I am just "lucky"
I am also a mooch because the govt. employed my company ( always has been weak) noticing you are not including all of those professions employed by govt.
and my situation doesn't count.
none of those arguments detracts one bit form the fact that welfare is mooching.
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-17 17:31:42)
and I am simply saying it takes his ambition, drive, and determination to achieve. Luck has got nothing to do with itKmarion wrote:
I'm simply saying that qualifications aren't always enough to satisfy the very real and immediate problem. Not everyone is entitled to unemployment benefits. Contractors and the self employed have trouble getting them.lowing wrote:
No he won't settle. Nothing more needs to be said of your friend. He will recieve his unemployment benefit for the time being. honestly, are you really worried about him and his ability to overcome?Kmarion wrote:
No he won't settle. But that doesn't mean he can shit in a pan and fry it up in the mean time.
What you call corporate welfare I call tax exemptions in an effort for a company to grow and employ. Just like anything else, a company is also in the market for location and cities offer incentives to bring the jobs to their cities. Nothing wrong with that. there is good that comes out of it. It puts people to work. We have already seen what happens when govt. steals too much form a company or a person. They leave and govt. gets nothing.Turquoise wrote:
You can make that argument for contractors -- you can't for corporate welfare -- like farm subsidies.lowing wrote:
Wrong, people are getting paid for services that the govt. says it needs. It is not taking something in exchange for nothing.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I guess a business that gets a subsidy from the government is mooching off the taxpayer. I guess a defense contractor receiving a government contract is mooching off the taxpayer. I guess anyone working for government is mooching off the taxpayer. I mean, it may be called a subsidy/contract/paycheck but let's cut the bullshit and call it what it is - a redistribution of my wealth to someone else aka a MOOCHER!
As much as Boortz and many others like to complain about the poor mooching, corporations are the biggest offenders.
Take, for example, Archer Daniels Midland. This agricorp doesn't need tax money to stay afloat. They do quite well for themselves without any government aid. Yet, for decades, they've been sucking up pork from both parties.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-17 17:37:35)
Really, so five dozen equally qualified and ambitious people going after one job posting has no impact on your chances? A reduction in available jobs has nothing to do with a reduction in opportunity?lowing wrote:
and I am simply saying it takes his ambition, drive, and determination to achieve. Luck has got nothing to do with itKmarion wrote:
I'm simply saying that qualifications aren't always enough to satisfy the very real and immediate problem. Not everyone is entitled to unemployment benefits. Contractors and the self employed have trouble getting them.lowing wrote:
No he won't settle. Nothing more needs to be said of your friend. He will recieve his unemployment benefit for the time being. honestly, are you really worried about him and his ability to overcome?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
you mean there is only 1 job left in the world and 5 dozen people are going for it? Lets step into reality for a secondKmarion wrote:
Really, so five dozen equally qualified and ambitious people going after one job posting has no impact on your chances. A reduction in available jobs has nothing to do with a reduction in opportunity?lowing wrote:
and I am simply saying it takes his ambition, drive, and determination to achieve. Luck has got nothing to do with itKmarion wrote:
I'm simply saying that qualifications aren't always enough to satisfy the very real and immediate problem. Not everyone is entitled to unemployment benefits. Contractors and the self employed have trouble getting them.
How about cross training? relocating? the fact that there is always more than one job left in the world.
dude kcd, his state has micky d's with super size it, we can't beat that.King_County_Downy wrote:
Dude, my state would stomp the shit out of your state.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I thought it was limited to certain types of food. Of course I live in a state that is significantly more awesome than <insert your state here>.
We got Sir Mix-a-lot and his posse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWeSBFiKmmU
I work at a grocery store and honestly, maybe 1/30-40 people buys paying food stamps. When they do... they do usually buy absolute necessities (crackers, fruit, bread, etc) and buy a lot of the reduced produce and grocery as well.
I used a simple single scenario. I thought it would help you understand. Congrats on being absurdly literal.lowing wrote:
you mean there is only 1 job left in the world and 5 dozen people are going for it? Lets step into reality for a secondKmarion wrote:
Really, so five dozen equally qualified and ambitious people going after one job posting has no impact on your chances. A reduction in available jobs has nothing to do with a reduction in opportunity?lowing wrote:
and I am simply saying it takes his ambition, drive, and determination to achieve. Luck has got nothing to do with it
How about cross training? relocating? the fact that there is always more than one job left in the world.
the very real and immediate problem.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I would consider 1/40 a lot.Poseidon wrote:
I work at a grocery store and honestly, maybe 1/30-40 people buys paying food stamps. When they do... they do usually buy absolute necessities (crackers, fruit, bread, etc) and buy a lot of the reduced produce and grocery as well.
You know why? 'cause it's not really much. In Florida a single person gets about $200 a month. $50 a week. $7.14 a day.. $2.38 a meal. ofc they are frugalPoseidon wrote:
I work at a grocery store and honestly, maybe 1/30-40 people buys paying food stamps. When they do... they do usually buy absolute necessities (crackers, fruit, bread, etc) and buy a lot of the reduced produce and grocery as well.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It's really not... if my memory serves me right, the highest total I rang up for someone using food stamps was about $45. The rest run in the $20-25 range.Kmarion wrote:
You know why? 'cause it's not really much. In Florida a single person gets about $200 a month. $50 a week. $7.14 a day.. $2.38 a meal. ofc they are frugalPoseidon wrote:
I work at a grocery store and honestly, maybe 1/30-40 people buys paying food stamps. When they do... they do usually buy absolute necessities (crackers, fruit, bread, etc) and buy a lot of the reduced produce and grocery as well.
Then of course there's WIC...
and I used an entire industry as an example.. THe solutions are there. Do not expect your next job to be right down the street, in the same industry, or for the same amount of money. But the jobs are there.Kmarion wrote:
I used a simple single scenario. I thought it would help you understand. Congrats on being absurdly literal.lowing wrote:
you mean there is only 1 job left in the world and 5 dozen people are going for it? Lets step into reality for a secondKmarion wrote:
Really, so five dozen equally qualified and ambitious people going after one job posting has no impact on your chances. A reduction in available jobs has nothing to do with a reduction in opportunity?
How about cross training? relocating? the fact that there is always more than one job left in the world.the very real and immediate problem.
The reality of it all is anyone that refuses to be kept down will not be. It is as simple as that. Then you have those that would rather wait for your precious "luck" to reveal itself.
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-17 19:56:55)
Did you even read my link?...lowing wrote:
What you call corporate welfare I call tax exemptions in an effort for a company to grow and employ. Just like anything else, a company is also in the market for location and cities offer incentives to bring the jobs to their cities. Nothing wrong with that. there is good that comes out of it. It puts people to work. We have already seen what happens when govt. steals too much form a company or a person. They leave and govt. gets nothing.Turquoise wrote:
You can make that argument for contractors -- you can't for corporate welfare -- like farm subsidies.lowing wrote:
Wrong, people are getting paid for services that the govt. says it needs. It is not taking something in exchange for nothing.
As much as Boortz and many others like to complain about the poor mooching, corporations are the biggest offenders.
Take, for example, Archer Daniels Midland. This agricorp doesn't need tax money to stay afloat. They do quite well for themselves without any government aid. Yet, for decades, they've been sucking up pork from both parties.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
Can't say as I did, too long. I am betting you didn't read it either.Turquoise wrote:
Did you even read my link?...lowing wrote:
What you call corporate welfare I call tax exemptions in an effort for a company to grow and employ. Just like anything else, a company is also in the market for location and cities offer incentives to bring the jobs to their cities. Nothing wrong with that. there is good that comes out of it. It puts people to work. We have already seen what happens when govt. steals too much form a company or a person. They leave and govt. gets nothing.Turquoise wrote:
You can make that argument for contractors -- you can't for corporate welfare -- like farm subsidies.
As much as Boortz and many others like to complain about the poor mooching, corporations are the biggest offenders.
Take, for example, Archer Daniels Midland. This agricorp doesn't need tax money to stay afloat. They do quite well for themselves without any government aid. Yet, for decades, they've been sucking up pork from both parties.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
oh... why do I even try...lowing wrote:
Can't say as I did, too long. I am betting you didn't read it either.Turquoise wrote:
Did you even read my link?...lowing wrote:
What you call corporate welfare I call tax exemptions in an effort for a company to grow and employ. Just like anything else, a company is also in the market for location and cities offer incentives to bring the jobs to their cities. Nothing wrong with that. there is good that comes out of it. It puts people to work. We have already seen what happens when govt. steals too much form a company or a person. They leave and govt. gets nothing.
Look, lowing, you are aware that we've been subsidizing agriculture unnecessarily for about 70 years now, right? These were policies originally put into place to help small farmers, but now that agriculture is mostly corporate, it doesn't need any tax money or incentives for more profit.
ADM is the epitome of why these policies need to change, because they cost you and me as taxpayers in the form of pork.
Turq you always talk about ending farming subsidiaries so I guess you are the guy to talk to about it.
Wouldn't ending farming subsidiaries force farmers to grow less things like corn and wheat and more cash crops like cotton and tobacco, thus raising food prices and lowering supplies.
On a sidenote I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, so treat me like your average voter here.
Wouldn't ending farming subsidiaries force farmers to grow less things like corn and wheat and more cash crops like cotton and tobacco, thus raising food prices and lowering supplies.
On a sidenote I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, so treat me like your average voter here.
Lower supply, increase price would be the economically correct order of events.
So what? We can make such an absurd amount of food it's not like we have an issue with famine. The market reaches equilibrium somewhere, what does it matter where that point is.
So what? We can make such an absurd amount of food it's not like we have an issue with famine. The market reaches equilibrium somewhere, what does it matter where that point is.
Hmmmmm so you want farms to go for pure profit huh? That would mean pure cash crops, and not necessarily what the nation needs to eat.Turquoise wrote:
oh... why do I even try...lowing wrote:
Can't say as I did, too long. I am betting you didn't read it either.Turquoise wrote:
Did you even read my link?...
Look, lowing, you are aware that we've been subsidizing agriculture unnecessarily for about 70 years now, right? These were policies originally put into place to help small farmers, but now that agriculture is mostly corporate, it doesn't need any tax money or incentives for more profit.
ADM is the epitome of why these policies need to change, because they cost you and me as taxpayers in the form of pork.
Maybe ethenol corn
It might also mean a farmer could and probably would sell his crop to the highest bidder, and that bidder may not be in the US. Yeah go ahead, take away all incentive from corporate farming. Watch what happens.
Also look to see farms sell out to subdivision developers. If yo don't wanna pay for their efforts, why not cash out the land and live rich? Fucking you and I. I sure as hell would
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-17 20:15:02)
...
Guys it's not like people refuse to pay for things they need desperately to live.
How the fuck is lowing pro farm subsidy?
Guys it's not like people refuse to pay for things they need desperately to live.
How the fuck is lowing pro farm subsidy?
Because food is one of the basic necessities of life. We need it, it is hard work and not many are willing to do it for marginal if any profits. Farmers, even corporate farms, are still at the mercy of the weather. Conditions beyond their control. No I have no problem with doing whatever incentives it takes for America to eat. Sorry to disappoint.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
...
Guys it's not like people refuse to pay for things they need desperately to live.
How the fuck is lowing pro farm subsidy?
Do you not realize how stupid easy it is for us to produce food these days? America could feed the entire world times over if it was producing at full capacity. Yes supply will naturally decrease as the market is flooded, but hardly to the point of people starving. You act as if people would refuse to pay the cents per pound it would take for farmers to pay their expenses and make tidy profits off food.
DO you realize one shit storm can wipe entire crops for the year? Obviously you haven't spent much time on a farm. Most of them put every penny back into their farms. There is no vacation, the off season is spent repairing equipment and getting it ready for the up coming crops. Farming is a hard life. and it does not pay most of the time. If incentives are needed to keep them going, and not sell out to a developer, so be it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Do you not realize how stupid easy it is for us to produce food these days? America could feed the entire world times over if it was producing at full capacity. Yes supply will naturally decrease as the market is flooded, but hardly to the point of people starving. You act as if people would refuse to pay the cents per pound it would take for farmers to pay their expenses and make tidy profits off food.
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-17 20:34:08)