Obama Bought Many of His Votes with Taxpayer Dollars

Maybe a bit humiliating for some, but let's call it having to eat a slice of humble pie, which doesn't hurt anyone - in fact, it builds character and those people appreciate what they get...... most do not. You should know by now we have an entitlement mentality.....

Hard to believe your last question. Just who do you think is paying for the welfare druggie's heroin, meth or whatever his/her pleasure is?

If Joe Citizen has to take random drug tests to keep his job and he has to help pay for the food stamps, then why shouldn't the food stamp USER be made to take random drug tests to make sure the food stamps aren't being used in exchange for drugs and he is also fit for work by being clean and sober?

You really think that's to rough on welfare recipients?

And what about the KIDs of these welfare drug users?

 

So to be clear... you're saying that Medicare and Medicaid are evil programs that, far from delivering valued services, are merely plots to generate government dependency.

And further, you're saying that Americans are so gullible or greedy or stupid that they think they like the programs, even though they really hate them, and the only reason they're saying they like the program is because they have no other choices.

Would you listen to yourself? Your logic is entirely circular, and relies on a picture of Americans as too stupid and gullible to understand what's going on.

Under your argument above, I can't think of *any* government program designed to alleviate social and economic ills that *wouldn't* be considered a "dependency generator". So you're essentially arguing that there should be no social safety net, no help for society's most vulnerable, no nothing.

Talk about extreme.

 

So to be clear... you're saying that Medicare and Medicaid are evil programs that, far from delivering valued services, are merely plots to generate government dependency.

And further, you're saying that Americans are so gullible or greedy or stupid that they think they like the programs, even though they really hate them, and the only reason they're saying they like the program is because they have no other choices.

Would you listen to yourself? Your logic is entirely circular, and relies on a picture of Americans as too stupid and gullible to understand what's going on.

Under your argument above, I can't think of *any* government program designed to alleviate social and economic ills that *wouldn't* be considered a "dependency generator". So you're essentially arguing that there should be no social safety net, no help for society's most vulnerable, no nothing.

Talk about extreme.

 

It's all relative. You keep making excuses and trying to convince me how much more expensive it is.....how everyone is poorer.....how they can't work hard AND go to school....blah, blah, blah.

Again....it's all relative. My Dad was a carpenter....self employed. We didn't have health insurance....and 5 of us lived in a frame un-airconditioned, un-heated house 1/2 block from a train track. When we had to go to the doctor, Dad paid him out on time. We always had food on the table....but it was simple inexpensive meals and we rarely ate out. We had one car.

Compare that to what supposedly "poor" people have today: big screen tv's, IPhones....and gov't (taxpayer) subsistence to get them....AND their food in the form of food stamps. Welfare mothers are paid to stay home and have kid after kid......at taxpayer expense. Not claiming they ALL do; but a good number do.

I was behind a fairly young couple in the grocery store line the other day. A healthy-looking, able bodied man and woman around 30 years of age. They had tatooes all over and their black-leather motorcycle outfits on. They paid with their food stamp card....and then went out hopped on their big motorcycle and drove off. Now.....tatooes are expensive. And yet these young healthy-looking people had plenty of them.

I don't know what your limit is on people taking advantage of the government....which is really hard-working taxpayers.......maybe you have no limits. But I believe most people do have limits. Programs that were put in place for the truly POOR, are being abused and NOT used for the truly POOR anymore, IMO.

 

Thanks for pointing out that Bush wanted college students to starve to death. Keep up the good work pointing out how Obama has worked tirelessly to alleviate people's suffering and ensuring that they don't starve to death.

 

I never called them "evil." Those are your words......strawmen....not mine. I said what I said; that Medicare is a big massive federal program that we all were forced to pay in to.....with no other choice.....and so.....we have no other choice. AND BTW, one has to pay for Supplemental Health Insurance...and Supplemental drug insurance too; the Medicare program is NOT all-inclusive and does NOT cover illnesses and drugs in full. Some people think it's free; its not really. In addition to the part we pay out of our SS for Medicare...we also pay close to $6,000/yr for our Supplementals. That's only going to go up....so for you, you'll pay a LOT more. Then there's the begging to get certain treatments if you have a serious illness. I have a good friend who went through quite a few weeks/months trying to get a new cancer drug that Medicare considered 'experimental.'

Nah....you're playing games here Raytri. You keep creating strawmen. IF you think a person already on Medicare can simply say, "No I don't want it and go out and get any other health insurance, you'd be wrong. It is NOT so. They took it out of our paychecks and we had no other choice. We still have no other choice. Like it...or not.....it's what we have and no other choice. What is it about "no choice" that you don't understand?

Well....again, YOUR words; not mine. I never said "no social safety net." You are correct above.....it's supposed to be for "society's most vunerable." But they don't stop there; they want control of everybody. And they force all to be in the program....because somebody has to pay for their big gov't programs. And if you think controlling your healthcare....under Obamacare....isn't having control of you, you're dead wrong. Pun intended.

Do you know that IF you wanted to opt out of Medicare....that you would lose your Social Security benefits?

Bottom line is....if given that choice, I prefer private over government. Because when private policies are available, I can go to another if I don't like one. With the federal gov't; that's it; that is your ONLY choice.

 

OMG. How long are Democrats going to blame Bush for all of Obama's ills???? I DO believe it's way past time to start blaming the last guy to have had a term....
and that is none other than BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.

 

Seriously. Good points. I'm thinking that we should let the citizens of Minnesota pay for all the druggies who are on food stamps. BTW, I can't believe it either.

 

You said this in response to a link I gave you showing that Medicare and Medicaid are actually hugely popular:

Well, duh.....once you get an entire population on a government program.....and they have no other choices....what the heck or they going to say??? Of course they are going to say they support it; they have NO OTHER CHOICES. That's the entire point: keep 'em under our Democrat control.

If the program is one that gives you no choice and makes you dependent, how is that not evil?



AND BTW, one has to pay for Supplemental Health Insurance...and Supplemental drug insurance too; the Medicare program is NOT all-inclusive and does NOT cover illnesses and drugs in full. Some people think it's free; its not really. In addition to the part we pay out of our SS for Medicare...we also pay close to $6,000/yr for our Supplementals. That's only going to go up....so for you, you'll pay a LOT more. Then there's the begging to get certain treatments if you have a serious illness. I have a good friend who went through quite a few weeks/months trying to get a new cancer drug that Medicare considered 'experimental.'

Look at your quote above! You said "of course they claim to like it, because they have no other choice!" Which makes no sense: just because you have no choice doesn't mean you have to like it. But that's what you said. I'm not making up strawmen at all.

I didn't say that, nor did I suggest it. I said Medicare and Medicaid were hugely popular.

It's the logical result of your argument. If all government safety-net programs create dependency, there's no good justification for any of it.

Oh... so it's somehow not creating dependency if it's the most vulnerable receiving the benefits? How does that work?

Right. Providing services is now "control".

Remember, this whole discussion started with your claim that Obama was buying votes with taxpayer dollars -- defined by you as providing government benefits. Defined by you to include Medicare and Medicaid.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how, by the standard you've laid yout, you couldn't accuse *any* government social program of being used to "buy votes" -- and how, if that's your position, you can support any social programs at all.

On the surface that sounds silly, but I'd like to hear the reasoning for that condition before deciding it should be changed.

 

This thread is hillarious...

Look at the right wingers try to come up with excuses,,,,,

Hey, righties, one little problem, as usual your delusions don't line up with reality.

The states with the highest food stamp usage are the ones who voted for Romeny:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703834804576301241171253176.html

Reality based upon facts seems to be that if you lower food stamp usage, increase educational levels and provide higher income jobs, your state voted for Obama. If your state is poorly educated, with low paying jobs and with more people living off the government dime, then your state voted for Romney. No wonder right wingers are against education and high paying jobs, it would eliminate their base.

 

I think we all know where the food/beer/cigarette/strip club/ casino stamps are headed.......


The Poorest American Cities of 2008 (1-30)

1. Detroit, 33.3% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 52 years
2. Cleveland, 30.5% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 20 years
3. Buffalo, 30.3% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 43 years
4. Newark, 26.1% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 102 years
5. Miami, 25.6% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 52 years
6. Fresno, 25.5% in poverty--Republican Mayor for the last 13 years
7. Cincinnati, 25.1% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 29 years
8. Toledo, 24.7% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 20 years
9. El Paso, 24.3% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 120 years
10. Philadelphia, 24.1% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 57 years
11. Milwaukee, 23.4% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 49 years
12. Memphis, 23.1% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 133 years
13. St. Louis, 22.9% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 60 years
14. Dallas, 22.6% in poverty--Republican Mayor for the last 2 years
14 New Orleans,22.6% in poverty-Democrat Mayor for the last 141 years
16. Atlanta, 22.4% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 130 years
17. Stockton, Calif., 21.6% in poverty--No info available--probably Libs
18. Minneapolis, 21.3% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 35 years
19. Pittsburgh, 21.2% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 21 years
20. Tucson, 20.9% in poverty--No info available--probably Libs
21. Chicago, 20.6% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 78 years
22. Columbus,Ohio 20.1% in poverty-Democrat Mayor for the last 9 years
23. Long Beach, Calif., 19.8% in poverty--No info available--probably Libs
24. Houston, 19.5% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 88 years
25 Los Angeles,19.4% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for "the last 8 years"
26. Baltimore, 19.3% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 42 years
27 San Antonio,19.2% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 38 years
28. Phoenix, 18.9% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 5 years
29. Boston, 18.7% in poverty--Democrat Mayor for the last 79 years
30. Denver, 18.4% in poverty----Democrat Mayor for the last 46 years

....to your local liberal utopia/poverty stricken crime laden sh'thole.
.
.

 

And the poorest counties in America:

1) Ziebach County, S.D. Poverty rate: 50.1%
2) Todd County, S.D. Poverty rate: 49.1%
3) Shannon County, S.D. Poverty rate: 47.3%
4) Issaquena County, Miss. Poverty rate: 43.3%
5) Humphreys County, Miss. Poverty rate: 42.2%
6) Washington County, Miss. Poverty rate: 42.2%
7) Sioux County, N.D. Poverty rate: 41.3%
Holmes County, Miss. Poverty rate: 41.2%
9) Corson County, S.D. Poverty rate: 40.9%
10) Allendale County, S.C. Poverty rate: 40.4%
11) Lake County, Tenn. Poverty rate: 40.4%
12) East Carroll Parish, La. Poverty rate: 40.3%
13) Owsley County, Ky. Poverty rate: 40.1%
14) Maverick County, Texas Poverty rate: 39.9%
15) Wilcox County, Ala. Poverty rate: 39.6%

So is your point that even the poorest democratic cities are doing better than the poorest republican counties. I mean all of these republican voting counties would love to have Detroits 33% poverty level.

Or is your point that the discussion was about food stamps buying votes, and since the facts show that claim to be an utterly false as most high food stamp states vote republican, you try reach from some straw man argument to prop up your right wing delusions.

 

you are lying of course. YOU lost by a bigger margin this year than we did in 2004. Why am I not surprised?

 

We're praising Obama for ensuring that people can eat. In contrast, the Repubs want people to die from hunger.

 

I've got a novel idea: especially considering that the United States is as "broke as a whore's heart", let's dismantle the hyperlib Welfare State, do away with it entirely, and quit wasting any more money on parasites.... Who's in favor of that? Nobody? And that is exactly why we're in the mess we're in!

 

Every person on welfare or in a union was bought and paid for. Every woman that voted for Obama because they believed Roe vs Wade would be overturned and they would never be able to have an abortion, was bought and paid for. Any woman who hated Romney for hating women was bought and paid for. What other explanation is there? Of course you're going to vote for the person who won't make you face truth. Of course if reality is explained to you and you don't like it, you're going to vote for the guy who promises rainbows and sunshine. Unintelligent and/or desperate people will do anything. The rest is history.

 

The reason no one supports that is because Food Stamps and Unemployment and other welfare programs have proven to be economically beneficial in the data. Something republicans cannot say the same for with tax cuts on the rich. It's not popular to cut welfare at this point because A. We're not on solid economic ground and people still need it. And B. It's a proven fact that it's beneficial to have welfare in a recession.

 

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, Comrade Obama's "stimulus" and Ben "Bailout" Bernanke's reckless money-creation, ended the "Great Recession" in June 2009 -- more than three years ago! You'll want a link, of course: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/20/us-usa-economy-nber-idUSTRE68J2JJ20100920

Happy days are here again! Right? No? Well, why not go ahead and get rid of the horrific Welfare State burden? After all, the recession is long since over with, and The Messiah is safely re-installed in the presidency, where we can all enjoy more of his masterful leadership and "transparent" guidance for another four years....

You hyperlibs can practice "doublethink" all you like -- but you can't have it both ways... either Obama's "recovery" (funded by going into chasms of debt over 16 Trillion Dollars) worked, or, it was nothing but socialist, Keynesian fraud, which will bankrupt this country and ruin it, probably forever afterward....

 

I'm not running over to my neighbor's house with food every day....do I want them to starve? No, I have faith in them that they can get the means to feed themselves, or ask for help. This president has no faith in the people at all. He thinks so lowly of all of us that he needs to fix problems we're not even asking for. OR maybe he does just want to buy votes. ((I'm thinking both actually))

 

Yeah......so all those rich, evil CEO's and business people and those top tier taxpayers who are REPUBLICANS, don't have any education and are on food stamps. Yeah, right.

Besides this is about college students who are not poor being placed on food stamps. Has nothing to do with the truly POOR who are supposed to be the recipients of the program. Just think about it; if there are 4 students sharing a room and on food stamps, they have $800/mo in food money courtesy of the hard-working taxpayers. Hell, that's more money than a lot of working class have to spend on food each month. And with the debit card, it's being abused....BIG TIME. They are using the cash for things other than food.

 

You have not established the "are not poor" part of your argument.

 

This girl easily got one....and she's not poor. If it's this easy for her; it's way too easy:

http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/01/16/i-got-food-stamps-and-so-can-you/

There is several ways to get a debit SNAP card as a student. One way is that you must prove that you work somewhere 20 hr/week...and are a full-time student. They don't even ask for how much money you have....or your family has. IF you come from a family who is well-off, but would rather you apply for a SNAP debit card and keep that $200/mo home so they can spend it on something else, what is there to stop it? Nothing. BTW, I'm not claiming this is a liberal thing. I'm claiming it is being abused and it's the "free money" idea that says......"others do it, so why shouldn't I?" It is not in the spirit of what food stamps was supposed to be for: THE POOR.

 

I wonder how many college students get the SNAP card for food, and spend their hard earned money on parties and beer. I'm all for a little fun in college, but not on taxpayer dime.

 

She apparently got hers by accident. She was told, correctly, that she hadn't provided the proper documentation, so she didn't qualify. Then a few weeks later, a card just appeared in her mailbox. That sounds like a breakdown of process. Given the long lines at the application office, it's not too surprising to see something fall through the cracks. I'd be curious how and why it happened, which might lead to further questions. But there's nothing particularly outrageous about her story.

It's a reasonable assumption that someone who is a full-time student and working 20/hours a week qualifies for food stamps. Family wealth isn't relevant, since not everyone gets financial help from their parents. That's why they ask for the student's paychecks, not their parents'.

Is that foolproof? No. But there's a cost-benefit question when it comes to eligibility verification for *any* program. In this case, it's "How much administrative cost do you want to impose on the food-stamp program to keep a few middle-class students from abusing the system?" If the enforcement costs more than the fraud, it's not worth doing.

Nope. But again, not every child of well-off parents gets assistance. My wife didn't. you can't assume the parents' resources are available to the student. And it's probably not worth spending a lot of resources to prevent a few well-off chiselers from cheating the system.

 

This college student likes her new debit SNAP card because it enables her to buy the more expensive....twice as much or more......organic foods. So, while the taxpayers who are funding this for her are out buying the regular orange juice, she's able to purchase the organic juice that costs twice as much.

"Last year, University senior Anna Crist posted on her Facebook page: “Got approved for
foodstamps! Maybe this will encourage healthy eating and more eating in general… Yay!”

http://dailyemerald.com/2012/05/31/2255100/


States aren't required evidently to keep records on this, but Virginia does:

"For instance, Virginia spent $447,000 in SNAP benefits for college students in January 2007 but by January of this year the total had risen to $2.9 million, according to the state’s Department of Social Services. The state spent $30 million in food assistance benefits to college students in 2011."

Now....do you really think that in between 2011 when that state was spending $30 million on SNAP benefits for college students......to less than one year later, when it exploded to $2.9 million for college students.....that that many more college students suddenly became "poor?" That's an EXPLOSION of new benefits going to college students.....who LOVED Obama. Now we know why.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...6971aee-275f-11e2-b4f2-8320a9f00869_blog.html



This one.....says she "saved" a lot of money by getting on the food SNAP program. Didn't say she was starving or unable to eat......just that she could "save money" by being on the program:

According to The Signal, a student-run newspaper at Georgia State University, a basic meal plan at the school can cost approximately $1,700, which is more than many students can reportedly afford.


“With me being a senior and living on campus for the past four years, I honestly got tired of paying that amount of money per semester just to eat,” student Taylor Smith told the paper. “I did not even know that I was applicable for food stamps until someone told me about the site and to apply to see if I would get it.”


Added Smith, “Since then, I have saved a ton of money.

Well, I'm sure glad Ms. Taylor is "saving" a ton of her money....while taxpayers are footing the bill. And no shame whatsoever.

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/02...rgia-college-students-turning-to-food-stamps/