Post: #1

Our little fascist/marxist president Obama wants to get more Americans reliant on the government.

His administration is spending between $2.5 and $3 million dollars on ADVERTISING to get MORE people on food stamps, people who today have their dignity and are paying for their own food. Watch the ad below (it's shocking). Get food stamps and you'll look AMAZING:





Of course the government doesn't have the money to pay for this. The Obama administration is borrowing money from abroad, from the Chinese, to pay for advertisements to try to get people on welfare (which we already borrow money to pay for)!?!?!?!? The 2011 federal government deficit is roughly 1.3 trillion dollars.

Never mind that as of August 2011 we had a record 45.8 million Americans receiving food stamps. Here's a link to the Bloomberg article:

45.8 million Americans on food stamps

If this doesn't tell you everything you need to know about the intent of Obama's administration than I don't know what will.

Here are the results of the welfare state:





I honestly think this last video may be a satire, but I am not sure. Maybe. Maybe not. In any case if you are a Democrat reading this do you really want to create broken families and a permanent and growing underclass with their dignity destroyed, getting something and exchanging nothing in return (just like criminals)?

Food stamps, the welfare state gateway drug.

Post: #2

   

Post: #3

Follow the money.

Food stamps is welfare for America's food corporations as much as it is for the poor. People on food stamps don't buy apples and bananas. They buy coca-cola, hot pockets, pringles, and so on. Tysons, Cargill, and all those big food companies love food stamps. Fast food companies wanted in on the action to be able to accept those food stamp cards.

For the corporations it's guaranteed income no matter how bad the economy gets. If you're going to say it's welfare for the poor, you must also accept that it's welfare for the rich.

Post: #4

(06-29-2012 03:50 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Follow the money.

Food stamps is welfare for America's food corporations as much as it is for the poor. People on food stamps don't buy apples and bananas. They buy coca-cola, hot pockets, pringles, and so on. Tysons, Cargill, and all those big food companies love food stamps. Fast food companies wanted in on the action to be able to accept those food stamp cards.

For the corporations it's guaranteed income no matter how bad the economy gets. If you're going to say it's welfare for the poor, you must also accept that it's welfare for the rich.

'Follow the money.' is one of my favorite things to say.

It is always where the truth lies.

Post: #5

What a pathetic thread

Post: #6

(06-29-2012 03:50 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Follow the money.

Food stamps is welfare for America's food corporations as much as it is for the poor. People on food stamps don't buy apples and bananas. They buy coca-cola, hot pockets, pringles, and so on. Tysons, Cargill, and all those big food companies love food stamps. Fast food companies wanted in on the action to be able to accept those food stamp cards.

For the corporations it's guaranteed income no matter how bad the economy gets. If you're going to say it's welfare for the poor, you must also accept that it's welfare for the rich.

True enough. I am opposed to all welfare -- personal welfare AND corporate welfare. The corporatocracy must end.

It is just so disgusting to me that people can take government benefits and welfare, and go vote for more of it. Now I have to watch t.v. ads promoting people to sign up for food stamps? Has this administration lost it's mind? It is mind boggling really. It used to be that people were ashamed to receive government assistance and it still should be that way. It should not be promoted. Especially when we are running record deficits.

New rule, we should hit corporations whom have accepted this EBT/food stamp money with retroactive fines for profiting off the government dole.

New rule, if you take more money from government than you provide in taxes, you don't get to vote that year:





We are so fucked.

Post: #7

(06-29-2012 03:40 PM)durangotang Wrote:  Our little fascist/marxist president Obama wants to get more Americans reliant on the government.

What a wingnut. What does this commercial have to do with Obama? Do you have evidence that he is responsible for the commercial's production? The department of defense also runs commercials to try and recruit people into the military. I see them on Spike Channel all the time. Does that mean Obama personally signed off and approved them? Is that even within the president's power in the first place?

Secondly, why don't you show some evidence that Obama has signed any legislation that encouraged food stamp usage or widened their accessibility? The reason more people are on food stamps than ever is because 1) We have more population in the US than ever, and 2) because he came into the office during the worse recession since the Great Depression.

Thirdly, I wasn't born yesterday. All these right-wingers throwing around terms like "The food stamp president" know who their audience is. Angry white conservatives who think blacks are a bunch of parasites stealing their money. How convenient that they want to label the first black president with the welfare banner. Makes me fucking sick.

Meanwhile, not a peep from these assholes about the $3.7 trillion the wars have cost us(America fuck yeah!!!). Compared to that, the money spent on food stamps doesn't even show up on the radar. So let's keep things in perspective.

And no, I don't approve of the commercial as I doubt think it should be encouraged, however there clearly are people who want jobs but cannot find them. What's the alternative? Having millions of Americans dumpster-diving for food?

Post: #8

(06-29-2012 04:24 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 03:50 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Follow the money.

Food stamps is welfare for America's food corporations as much as it is for the poor. People on food stamps don't buy apples and bananas. They buy coca-cola, hot pockets, pringles, and so on. Tysons, Cargill, and all those big food companies love food stamps. Fast food companies wanted in on the action to be able to accept those food stamp cards.

For the corporations it's guaranteed income no matter how bad the economy gets. If you're going to say it's welfare for the poor, you must also accept that it's welfare for the rich.

True enough. I am opposed to all welfare -- personal welfare AND corporate welfare. The corporatocracy must end.

It is just so disgusting to me that people can take government benefits and welfare, and go vote for more of it. Now I have to watch t.v. ads promoting people to sign up for food stamps? Has this administration lost it's mind? It is mind boggling really. It used to be that people were ashamed to receive government assistance and it still should be that way. It should not be promoted. Especially when we are running record deficits.

New rule, we should hit corporations whom have accepted this EBT/food stamp money with retroactive fines for profiting off the government dole.

New rule, if you take more money from government than you provide in taxes, you don't get to vote that year:





We are so fucked.

Saying, "I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car or paying the mortgage" could mean that she is hopeful that Obama will turn around the economy given that rising gas prices and falling home prices were two of the top issues at the time of the election. Maybe Obama at some point promised to bring down the cost of gas or end the real estate crisis. Some might interpret her words as meaning she expects government to subsidize her gas expenses. I doubt that's what she meant. Who would even believe any president is going to hand out free gasoline? And certainly Obama has never even remotely hinted that he would subsidize anyone's gasoline.

PS -- I cannot wait to hear Brian's reaction.

Post: #9

(06-29-2012 04:24 PM)durangotang Wrote:  True enough. I am opposed to all welfare -- personal welfare AND corporate welfare. The corporatocracy must end.

You SAY that and yet you post a video of a poor black women.

Quote:In the 2011 fiscal year, $76.7 billion in food stamps were distributed.[2] As of March 2012, 46.4 million Americans were receiving on average $133.14 per month in food stamps.[3] Recipients must have at most near-poverty incomes to qualify for benefits[4], and in Washington, D.C., and Mississippi, more than one-fifth of residents receive food stamps.

What's the average compensation of the CEOs at Boeing, Lockheed, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan?

Who are bigger leaches - poor black women or executives at war profiteering companies?

Post: #10

I don't live in an area with a lot of black people, so I mostly see white trash/poor latinos/hispanics swiping their EBT cards. It is not about race but about the mindset. I think poor black people are more honest (vocal) about wanting welfare from the state, while poor white people generally claim the opposite but take the benefits anyway. Same difference.



And yes, the Obama administration is responsible for the USDA, who are running the ads. Obama appointed former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack (a Monsanto shill) as the head of the USDA. Food Czar (a fitting name).

@speakeasy Who's the wingnut? Maybe you should look in the mirror. In your world when does Obama take responsibility for anything? We currently have military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan (isn't he doubling down there?), Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, and Libya. I am a Ron Paul supporter and a libertarian and I despised Bush. Obama stepped into a terrible situation, but what has he done. Increase Bush's record year deficit of around $500 billion to triple that at around $1.5 trillion per year or so. He has expanded our military operations around the world. He was bailed out the banks. He has kept Bernake appointed. He changed from "health care reform" to "health INSURANCE reform" now mandating us to buy private healthcare or get taxed (remember him lying about how it wasn't a tax). He hasn't repealed the Patriot Act. He signed the recent NDAA. He and Eric Holder are guilty of Operation Fast and Furious (running guns into Mexico to increase border violence to demonize the second amendment). He maintains use of presidential secrecy against his promises of transparency. He maintains the use of executive orders, despite promising not to. He has literally expanded everything I despised about Bush, only with extra marxist zeal. And all these are just examples off the top of my head. Give me a minute I could write a book.

Post: #11

(06-29-2012 04:55 PM)durangotang Wrote:  And yes, the Obama administration is responsible for the USDA, who are running the ads. Obama appointed former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack (a Monsanto shill) as the head of the USDA. Food Czar (a fitting name).

Well then your anger should be directed at Tom Vilsack. The president has much broader matters to worry about at the national and global scale than some tv ad run by the department of agriculture. You and other Rush Limbaugh types already hated Obama, so you want to make this commercial stick to him so you can continue this mythology that he's this big welfare spender that doesn't want people to work.

And once again, that commercial was in VERY poor taste, although using public assistance if you are out of work through no fault of your own is nothing to be ashamed of given that you have paid into the system yourself when you were employed. And it's not only democrats either. I clearly remember Schwartzenegger during a gubernatorial debate saying that he wants to launch campaigns making the parents of poor children aware of the government assistance programs for them. This included of course people in the country illegally. And he's Republican.

Post: #12

(06-29-2012 04:24 PM)durangotang Wrote:  It is just so disgusting to me that people can take government benefits and welfare, and go vote for more of it.

You mean like how corporations do?

Post: #13

(06-29-2012 05:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 04:55 PM)durangotang Wrote:  And yes, the Obama administration is responsible for the USDA, who are running the ads. Obama appointed former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack (a Monsanto shill) as the head of the USDA. Food Czar (a fitting name).

Well then your anger should be directed at Tom Vilsack. The president has much broader matters to worry about at the national and global scale than some tv ad run by the department of agriculture. You and other Rush Limbaugh types already hated Obama, so you want to make this commercial stick to him so you can continue this mythology that he's this big welfare spender that doesn't want people to work.

I wouldn't waste energy arguing someone who uses fascist and marxist as ideological adjectives to describe the same person. Clearly you aren't going to change this person's mind and even if you could it's not worth the effort. Anyone who genuinely has such a lopsided view can't see the world objectively and you should set no store by their opinions. The people who benefit from all the Obama hate don't even really believe this (Republicans, etc.) stuff. They just capitalize on the political points it scores them whether it's divisive and poisonous or not.

Post: #14

(06-29-2012 05:06 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 04:24 PM)durangotang Wrote:  It is just so disgusting to me that people can take government benefits and welfare, and go vote for more of it.

You mean like how corporations do?

No G, corporations don't vote, but they do bribe the politicians with euphemistic "campaign contributions" and support armies of paid lobbyists.

Post: #15

(06-29-2012 05:24 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 05:06 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 04:24 PM)durangotang Wrote:  It is just so disgusting to me that people can take government benefits and welfare, and go vote for more of it.

You mean like how corporations do?

No G, corporations don't vote, but they do bribe the politicians with euphemistic "campaign contributions" and support armies of paid lobbyists.

Yeah, that's my point.

If it is "disgusting to you that people can take government benefits and welfare, and go vote for more of it."

What is it to you that corporations do?

Revolting?

Post: #16

(06-29-2012 05:30 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Yeah, that's my point.

If it is "disgusting to you that people can take government benefits and welfare, and go vote for more of it."

What is it to you that corporations do?

Revolting?

Both are disgusting.

@speakeasy What is it that Obama is responsible for then? I would like to hear your opinion.

I personally cannot imagine going on food stamps. Should people feel a sense of shame for their failures when they are getting free rent, eating free food, and existing off of other tax payers - yes! And it is that self pride that gets them off of assistance. Minor assistance from time to time with a sense of shame is totally different than the welfare mind frame.

Post: #17

The problem is that when you say "welfare" the first immediate association that the vast majority of people have is with poor people. It is not the shiny office buildings in NYC. This is not an accident. Arguments that people hate both (not singling you out duran), are not persuasive.

Post: #18

(06-29-2012 05:48 PM)durangotang Wrote:  @speakeasy What is it that Obama is responsible for then? I would like to hear your opinion.

He is responsible for any acts or legislation that he signed and authorized. Unless Obama specifically did something to expand who qualifies for welfare, I don't know why you are pinning it on him. There are more people on welfare because more people are unemployed. The rules for who gets welfare haven't changed because of Obama.

Quote:I personally cannot imagine going on food stamps. Should people feel a sense of shame for their failures when they are getting free rent, eating free food, and existing off of other tax payers - yes! And it is that self pride that gets them off of assistance. Minor assistance from time to time with a sense of shame is totally different than the welfare mind frame.

There's no such thing as being on welfare your whole life. Look up what the "T" in TANF stands for. If you do some research, you'll find that most people that use TANF do so responsibly. Most are not the "welfare queens" watching Jerry Springer as portrayed in the media. Most are people who had jobs but fell on hard times. When they were working, they paid into the system. It's basically insurance. We all pay into it, and if one day we need it, we don't have to face homelessness and starvation. So quit talking about it like it's theft of other people's tax dollars. I was once on unemployment. But so what, for all the years I had been working prior, I was paying into it myself.

Post: #19

Speak, you sound like a responsible person and not someone who would abuse the system, so you see it from your point of view.

If the 'T' in TANF actually stands for temporary, you might want to tell the guys in the video below. The video is by Alexandra Pelosi, Nacy Pelosi's daughter who shot this to highlight the negative aspects of the democratic party to be fair:





Because earlier she shot this video, which highlights some negative aspects of the Republican party in Mississipi:





Now take a look at the white liberal girl in the first video who says "food stamps, it's just food, like food." Do you think she is a 'Temporary' food stamper? No shame.

And that toothless hillbilly in the Mississippi video, who votes Republican and hates Democrats, do you think he is a 'Temporary' food stamper.

I have seen the same people for years living in section 8 housing and on food stamps for free. Is there really a 'T' in TANF?

Post: #20

Looks like second video in the first post is in fact satire:

Post: #21

It's just an endless feedback loop of benefits and votes.

- Politicians hand out benefits
- People become dependent on them
- The people support those politicians because they're hooked

Why do you think the Democrats have a <90% on the black and urban communities? And yet their schools are just as bad as ever, children out of wedlock has grown astronomically since the 1960's, etc. Do you think it's in the politicians' interest to SOLVE these problems, or keep handing out other people's money to get votes to stay in power?

Post: #22

durangotang sounds a lot like Rush Limbaugh

Post: #23

Checklist of lunacy

-highlight visual of blacks getting "free" stuff
-use it under the guise of "government" rather than the real culprit which is failed economic, educational, social policies
-simplify it and dumb it down to "don't work hard"...
-rinse and repeat

Facts
-Whites are the largest segment of welfare recipients in the US.
-Roosh hit it on the head...Welfare is going nowhere bc corporate America will not let it happen nor the banks, financial institutions, logistic companies. food processors, staffing agencies, grocery, convenience, petro retailers and of course you (balanced stock portfolio anyone?)
-Welfare also helps reduce crime and maintian social order...do you think the guy with the empty belly and guns is gonna sit peacefully and watch you eat?

But nice try...I'm guessing your affiliated with the RNC and responsible for seeding forums with large traffic and membership of white males, thus all the video's.....clever tactic..

Post: #24

So is everyone moving to Canada again? Which is quite an odd retort to health care reform in US, considering their well established welfare system.

Post: #25

(06-30-2012 01:40 PM)Vicious Wrote:  So is everyone moving to Canada again? Which is quite an odd retort to health care reform in US, considering their well established welfare system.

When George W Bush started the war in Iraq, Liberals wanted to go to Canada because it had a reputation of being less war friendly. And because Canada is more Socialist.

When Obamacare gets the green light from the Supreme Court, dumb Conservatives don't realize why Liberals wanted to go to Canada, but they try to mimic how Liberals reacted when they were frustrated with Government without realizing why Liberals chose Canada.

It goes along with the talking points the Conservatives are used to spouting. They don't know why they're saying it, but they'll still say it, no matter how dumb it sounds.