Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Today's Posts Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 12-07-2019, 10:55 PM   #1
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
WASHINGTON—Championing the decision as a way to cut costs and still meet federally mandated nutrition requirements, President Trump announced a plan Tuesday to replace food stamps with a new low-income foraging program. “We have developed a new foraging-based plan that provides qualifying Americans with a small, reusable bag they can fill with whatever they are able to scavenge from alleys, empty lots, or nearby wooded areas,” said Trump, explaining that underprivileged participants in the program would search for food scraps anywhere they can find them, including the dumpsters behind restaurants. “We will also be providing these low-income Americans with charts that explain which rotting foods are still safe to eat, which seeds and berries can be consumed without getting sick, and how to spot insects that are high in protein. Many disadvantaged citizens don’t have access to healthy meals at home, but this program will teach them the self-reliance they need to ensure their basic requirements for sustenance continue to be met.” Trump also proposed a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in which Americans would receive a weekly meal service kit containing pictures of food.

I know after the 9 month baby statement, this sounds believable but sorry, it’s the Onion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
if you’re able-bodied, able-minded, under age 50, and have no kids....why can’t you spend 20
hours a week earning the welfare that others pay for? Seriously, what’s wrong with that?

i have no problem
whatsoever, helping people
who cannot work. But people who can work, but choose. not to? That’s a very different animal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 12-08-2019, 05:44 AM   #2
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
if you’re able-bodied, able-minded, under age 50, and have no kids....why can’t you spend 20
hours a week earning the welfare that others pay for? Seriously, what’s wrong with that?

i have no problem
whatsoever, helping people
who cannot work. But people who can work, but choose. not to? That’s a very different animal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It’s that reading comprehension thing again
I know after the 9 month baby statement, this sounds believable but sorry, it’s the Onion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 12-08-2019, 07:20 AM   #3
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
It’s that reading comprehension thing again
I know after the 9 month baby statement, this sounds believable but sorry, it’s the Onion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
i know your post was satire. but the left as a whole is attacking trump for this.

Let’s start this from the beginning. The changes to the law will
require that those who are able bodied, able minded, younger than 50, and who have no children, to work/volunteer/train for 20 hours a week to qualify for federal welfare.

Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea?

Ocasio-cortez said her family would have starved due to this, which is a lie as it wouldn’t have impacted her family because they had children. Is it a good idea for her to distort things so badly to criticize?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 12-08-2019, 08:58 AM   #4
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
if you’re able-bodied, able-minded, under age 50, and have no kids....why can’t you spend 20
hours a week earning the welfare that others pay for? Seriously, what’s wrong with that?

i have no problem
whatsoever, helping people
who cannot work. But people who can work, but choose. not to? That’s a very different animal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim under the current law this is already required.. (20hours) the change is the red tape to extend the benefits and the 6% unemployment rate. Requirements.. 1 or 2 less f 35s fighters would save more money ..

Honestly i wish they put more efforts it kicking out the live in boyfriends..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
wdmso is offline  
Old 12-08-2019, 09:49 AM   #5
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
..

Honestly i wish they put more efforts it kicking out the live in boyfriends..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
👍🏻
Floridaman won’t do anything about that, he’s the guy who states building income one way for loans and another for taxes.
Sort of the same thing (fraud) but on a larger scale.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 12-08-2019, 10:47 AM   #6
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Jim under the current law this is already required.. (20hours) the change is the red tape to extend the benefits and the 6% unemployment rate. Requirements.. 1 or 2 less f 35s fighters would save more money ..

Honestly i wish they put more efforts it kicking out the live in boyfriends..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Many of the live-in boyfriends, are boyfriends and not husbands, because the moms get more welfare if they're not married. Growing up I knew three couples were were married in every practical sense, but never got legally married because staying leglly single, allowed the mom to get a bigger welfare check. I knew three families that did this. It's disgusting.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 12-08-2019, 11:05 AM   #7
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Many of the live-in boyfriends, are boyfriends and not husbands, because the moms get more welfare if they're not married. Growing up I knew three couples were were married in every practical sense, but never got legally married because staying leglly single, allowed the mom to get a bigger welfare check. I knew three families that did this. It's disgusting.
I have a good friend who had a child at 18 she was on welfare for 2 years he went in the army , then he got a State job and they attached his pay to recover the 2 years ..

Here was a guy using the system as it was designed to help in a bad spot short term , and they did this,, some incentive to leave
wdmso is offline  
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com