goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: renocat on February 13, 2018, 06:44:20 PM
-
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-wants-to-give-out-food-boxes-instead-of-food-stamps
Trump and Sonny want to replace snap cards with boxes of wholesome food.
-
Seems not too stupid
-
It’s not a completely terrible idea, but I would expect lobbyists from just about every corner of the food industry to fight it pretty hard.
-
"The logistics of the proposal were also unclear"
:lol:
-
The amount of control that some folks desire of poor people is super weird to me.
-
Drug test them at pickup imo
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It’s not nearly as stupid an idea as building a border wall, cutting Medicaid, or removing the individual mandate for insurance policies that have to cover pre-existing conditions, anyway.
-
disgusting expansion of big government. will never happen.
this would also eviscerate grocers in poor areas, even further limiting availability and increasing prices
-
his heart in the right place tho and its a pretty decent idea if you love enormous nanny states
-
I think his heart is probably in the wrong place.
-
It could be done right, which makes me sure Trump will botch it. If it actually included legit healthy and nutritionally balanced stuff then it seems like a win win to me. (Win #1: government buys in bulk, gets mega discounts; win #2: low income families don’t have to worry about shopping for necessities and get a little education on creating balanced meals).
-
I bet the government has Amazon Prime. So they could just order all of this crap from pantry and ship it free of charge.
-
The Blue Apron comparison is pretty lol though. “Look, here is some milk and oatmeal. Put these together for breakfast.”
-
They will get trump beans and trump rice and trump tuna and trump cereal
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Cut rich people taxes....take any choice away from the poors, they will eat what we give them.
America.
-
"The logistics of the proposal were also unclear"
:lol:
Love it
-
there are already hordes of COOPS and non-profits that do this kind of thing. just change the food stamp rules so that food stamps can be used to pay for the things that already exist.
-
Just need to go back to limiting what you can purchase with EBT cards. Like staple foods.
-
FoodStamps by Amazon powered by Blue Apron
-
Just need to go back to limiting what you can purchase with EBT cards. Like staple foods.
you more or less are limited already. Precooked/prepred food (like rotisserie chicken) are excluded, and most grocery stores POS prevents sales of non qualified purchases right off the bat anyways.
-
In this scenario I’m not sure why limiting choices is viewed as a bad thing so long as factors like allergies and religious preferences are taken into account. It sounds like we need to first decide whether EBT should be viewed as food stamps or as supplemental income. As I understand it, the government moved away from literal food stamps because it actually involved more cost to say “here is your money, you can only buy x, y, z with it.”
A pantry based program would ideally involve cooperation with local coops and growers to both subsidize their businesses and provide balanced meals fo families who likely don’t have an abundance of time to do it themselves.
-
Need to make FS non transferable
-
Need to make FS non transferable
They already are.
-
What about the parents who need to buy cake, ice cream, and soda for their kids’ birthday parties (this was always my favorite)?
-
poor kids that want cake for their birthdays
:curse: :curse: :curse: :curse: :curse: :curse:
really boils the blood
-
It's still free food, guys. Beggars can't be choosers.
-
It seems like it would be a lot of added costs just to be able to dictate what kind of food poor people eat.
-
It seems like it would be a lot of added costs just to be able to dictate what kind of food poor people eat.
They are claiming it will cut costs in half.
-
It seems like it would be a lot of added costs just to be able to dictate what kind of food poor people eat.
They are claiming it will cut costs in half.
"The logistics of the proposal were also unclear"
-
If you have an EBT card, your SNAP benefits are loaded on the EBT card, so there is no distinction between EBT and SNAP anymore.
-
On the grand continuum of punishing poor people this is not as bad as limiting withdrawals and charging big ATM fees like Kansas did or forcing people to go in to an office fill out paperwork every single month to try to get them to drop their Medicaid coverage, but it just underlines how little care their is for poor children who are by far the largest recipients of this benefit.
-
I could be talked into this if the logistics were clear
-
In this scenario I’m not sure why limiting choices is viewed as a bad thing.
unencumbered cash is the most efficient means of transfer. anything else merely discounts the value to the recipient of the amount transferred from the public.
-
In this scenario I’m not sure why limiting choices is viewed as a bad thing.
unencumbered cash is the most efficient means of transfer. anything else merely discounts the value to the recipient of the amount transferred from the public.
I follow the general reasoning, but my expectation is that assuming the government acquired favorable contracts to obtain certain items in bulk it could get them significantly cheaper than any individual person could, thus lowering the cost of purchase. Obviously administrative costs would go up, but even if you broke even in that scenario you end up with a program that (1) makes it easier on the recipient (don't have to go out shopping for basic items); and (2) is nutritionally balanced, which allows us to at least do SOMETHING to counteract the obesity epidemic.
-
No way big food corps let this happen
-
I follow the general reasoning, but my expectation is that assuming the government acquired favorable contracts to obtain certain items in bulk it could get them significantly cheaper than any individual person could, thus lowering the cost of purchase. Obviously administrative costs would go up, but even if you broke even in that scenario you end up with a program that (1) makes it easier on the recipient (don't have to go out shopping for basic items); and (2) is nutritionally balanced, which allows us to at least do SOMETHING to counteract the obesity epidemic.
grocery stores have profit margins of like 2% and purchasing and distributing food is basically the only thing they do. there's not a chance in hell that the federal govt can improve upon their efficiency. add in the govt disadvantage of paying people a living wage and the complication of trying to deliver the food and the idea is laughable.
-
This seems like a real problem for the transient population. I mean, it probably could work fairly well for the people who live at NYCHA or something. Though even there, the logistics issues of truckloads of food showing up at a place unequipped to handle such deliveries would be problematic. It has to be more expensive for the government to be doing/contracting out all of the S&H in this scenario.
-
Couldn’t you just ship it to designated spots and let people come get it?
-
This seems like a real problem for the transient population. I mean, it probably could work fairly well for the people who live at NYCHA or something. Though even there, the logistics issues of truckloads of food showing up at a place unequipped to handle such deliveries would be problematic. It has to be more expensive for the government to be doing/contracting out all of the S&H in this scenario.
Doesn't the USDA already ship food to every school district in America?
-
this is a terrible idea
-
this thread brings up a lot of reasons why this is pretty terrible
https://twitter.com/AnnieLowrey/status/963427645374517249
-
here's another good thread:
https://twitter.com/hugwins/status/963282840292032512
-
this thread brings up a lot of reasons why this is pretty terrible
https://twitter.com/AnnieLowrey/status/963427645374517249
I've done those food boxes and had a 3 box stretch where they were late or the food wasn't packaged properly and ruined. Couldn't imagine if I relied on it to eat.
-
this is a terrible idea
it's one of the worst ideas yet to come out of the presidential awful idea factory that is well known for their awful ideas. it's also very LOLTrump.
-
this thread brings up a lot of reasons why this is pretty terrible
https://twitter.com/AnnieLowrey/status/963427645374517249
Those are all solved by having the boxes at a common location (like a grocery store), and allowing different options/substitutions for allergies and religious preference.
-
In this scenario I’m not sure why limiting choices is viewed as a bad thing.
unencumbered cash is the most efficient means of transfer. anything else merely discounts the value to the recipient of the amount transferred from the public.
I don't understand why people have so much trouble with this concept
this thread brings up a lot of reasons why this is pretty terrible
https://twitter.com/AnnieLowrey/status/963427645374517249
Those are all solved by having the boxes at a common location (like a grocery store), and allowing different options/substitutions for allergies and religious preference.
also solved by letting people in need buy what they want/need, only my solution would take much less effort and cost less
-
this thread brings up a lot of reasons why this is pretty terrible
https://twitter.com/AnnieLowrey/status/963427645374517249
Those are all solved by having the boxes at a common location (like a grocery store), and allowing different options/substitutions for allergies and religious preference.
also solved by letting people in need buy what they want/need, only my solution would take much less effort and cost less
I get the efficiency argument. Obviously that debate isn't going anywhere until proposed logistics of the plan are explained.
That doesn't change the fact that the tweet you pasted makes really stupid points that you could just as easily try to argue with the current system.
1. What if you lose your card?
2. What if you're homeless?
3. What if the payment system is down?
4. What if the store doesn't stock the food you want?
5. What if the food you buy has bugs in it?
-
it's a great solution to the problem of poor people having lives that are too pleasant and uncomplicated.
-
this thread brings up a lot of reasons why this is pretty terrible
https://twitter.com/AnnieLowrey/status/963427645374517249
Those are all solved by having the boxes at a common location (like a grocery store), and allowing different options/substitutions for allergies and religious preference.
also solved by letting people in need buy what they want/need, only my solution would take much less effort and cost less
I get the efficiency argument. Obviously that debate isn't going anywhere until proposed logistics of the plan are explained.
That doesn't change the fact that the tweet you pasted makes really stupid points that you could just as easily try to argue with the current system.
1. What if you lose your card?
2. What if you're homeless?
3. What if the payment system is down?
4. What if the store doesn't stock the food you want?
5. What if the food you buy has bugs in it?
are you serious?
-
I guess I have believed the stories that you can get lobster and cigarettes with EBT and stamps so this seems appealing. I must be wrong
-
Control the poor, deny the press, cut taxes for the rich....hitting the trifecta in early year 2.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I guess I have believed the stories that you can get lobster and cigarettes with EBT and stamps so this seems appealing. I must be wrong
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/09/19/223796325/lobster-boy-looms-large-in-food-stamp-debate (https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/09/19/223796325/lobster-boy-looms-large-in-food-stamp-debate)
-
MAGA, in America's past, when it was great, lobster was a trash food that not even poor people would eat and they had to force it on prison inmates.
MAGA
-
Dems: We prefer programs that are often filled with waste, fraud and abuse.
-
The federal gov acquiring, packaging, shipping, and distributing food to every town in the country should solve the waste, fraud, and abuse for sure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The federal gov acquiring, packaging, shipping, and distributing food to every town in the country should solve the waste, fraud, and abuse for sure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the USDA already does this for school lunches.
-
The federal gov acquiring, packaging, shipping, and distributing food to every town in the country should solve the waste, fraud, and abuse for sure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don't recall saying the WFA would be "solved", how about mitigated.
-
The federal gov acquiring, packaging, shipping, and distributing food to every town in the country should solve the waste, fraud, and abuse for sure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Work with private sector. Churches, Meals on wheels, food banks, shelters etc. Not that difficult logistically for the vast number of recipients
Yes, coordinating this patchwork of a bunch of different private agencies sounds like it will be way more efficient than loading cash on a debit card.
What in the hell are you talking about?
-
I’m working under the assumption that everyone here is smart enough to know this is hilarious (at least inside where the libs can’t see).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Socialism bad. Food boxes good.
Love these guys.
-
The federal gov acquiring, packaging, shipping, and distributing food to every town in the country should solve the waste, fraud, and abuse for sure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Work with private sector. Churches, Meals on wheels, food banks, shelters etc. Not that difficult logistically for the vast number of recipients
Yes, coordinating this patchwork of a bunch of different private agencies sounds like it will be way more efficient than loading cash on a debit card.
What in the hell are you talking about?
Relying on a patchwork of private agencies will definitely solve fraud as well
-
He didn’t propose this to save money, he proposed it as a long term financial play for a business he will indirectly benefit from down the line.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fplainshumanities.unl.edu%2Fencyclopedia%2Ffigures%2F300%2Fegp.pg.032.jpg&hash=2baf64d52201e9231aafe01da5d6e5c62cc51b9a)
-
I love the "control the poor" argument. It's our money and we are GIVING it to the less fortunate. I'm not a fan of my hard earned tax dollars being spent on booze, cigarettes and 44 oz big gulps. Food stamps were meant as a way to FEED the poor....hence the "Food" part. Anything that would provide FOOD to the needy I'm all for.
-
I love the "control the poor" argument. It's our money and we are GIVING it to the less fortunate. I'm not a fan of my hard earned tax dollars being spent on booze, cigarettes and 44 oz big gulps. Food stamps were meant as a way to FEED the poor....hence the "Food" part. Anything that would provide FOOD to the needy I'm all for.
You can't buy booze or cigarettes with food stamps.
-
“It’s our money”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If the poor aren’t eating clean paleo diets they can go rot in hell ks what I always say.
-
I love the "control the poor" argument. It's our money and we are GIVING it to the less fortunate. I'm not a fan of my hard earned tax dollars being spent on booze, cigarettes and 44 oz big gulps. Food stamps were meant as a way to FEED the poor....hence the "Food" part. Anything that would provide FOOD to the needy I'm all for.
You can't buy booze or cigarettes with food stamps.
This is hilarious.
-
“It’s our money”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good point, this wasn't meant for people (like you i assume) that don't pay any income tax. When I say "our money" i mean people like me that pay the bulk of the taxes in this country and am sick and tired of democrats (and now republicans) rough ridin' it away.
-
Empathy should really be taught more
-
It is definitely awesome that kids go hungry so we prove a point about responsibility to their insufficiently grateful parents.
-
I’m waiting for Whiskey Biscuit to post his tax returns to let us all know how much he pays in taxes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It is definitely awesome that kids go hungry so we prove a point about responsibility to their insufficiently grateful parents.
IMO not enough people seem to care at all about the children in these discussions. I've said it before I don't mind losing some efficiency in the process if it results in more balanced meals for families.
-
It is definitely awesome that kids go hungry so we prove a point about responsibility to their insufficiently grateful parents.
IMO not enough people seem to care at all about the children in these discussions. I've said it before I don't mind losing some efficiency in the process if it results in more balanced meals for families.
It's hard to care about the children when their parents are being so poorly treated by the system. How can a parent care for a child when there are no jobs??? And even if they have a job, big corporations won't pay them enough money and they have no opportunity to get a second job. It's all incredibly unfair and in the end, the people that suffer are those that can't work because there are no jobs and their children.
-
no, it's still not hard to care about the children even with all that
-
Since we're already paying an assload on their medicaid, it probably makes sense to try and force these morons to eat healthy. God forbid they learn something in the process.
Of course reducing what the govt spends on medicaid would hurt gdp, so the resident fucktards prefer helicopters of cash.
It would take "big grocery" about 11 seconds to adjust their inventory and supply chain to accommodate, so yhe idea it's "too confusing" is very lol.
If we cared about the children these kids would have been taken away from these people at birth. Lol
-
Some people people like fsd just prefer fascism.
-
Then again, remember when the govt tried to make a webpage for poors to by shitty high deductible insurance policies through???? :lol:
-
The very pillar of capitalism is for hard working taxpayers to subsidize the piss poor decisions of others. Want to eat anything and everything and never get your ass off the couch? No problem, taxpayers that eat healthy and exercise will pay for your health care. Want to eff dudes without a rubber? No problem, taxpayers will pay for your hospital bills and subsidize your living expenses....hell taxpayers will even pay you more money for your subsequent kids. Want to do drugs? No problem, taxpayers will pay for the emergency care costs of your overdoses and subsidize your living expenses because you can't pass a drug test to get a job. Ain't life great!
-
"unprotected sex out of wedlock"
Lol.
-
It is definitely awesome that kids go hungry so we prove a point about responsibility to their insufficiently grateful parents.
IMO not enough people seem to care at all about the children in these discussions. I've said it before I don't mind losing some efficiency in the process if it results in more balanced meals for families.
That’s the problem so many people are overlooking that Trump is trying to address. Posters like Sys are good for popping in occasionally to espouse economic truisms about the superior efficiency of cash that completely misses the point: welfare is about providing assistance to the truly needy - and sometimes that isn’t so “efficient.”
People are spending their food stamps on unhealthy crap, and at much more expensive locations (convenience stores). Some of that can be fixed by tightening restrictions on the use of food stamps. But it doesn’t address people selling/bartering their food stamps for pennies on the dollar to buy booze, cigs, sex, drugs, etc. In all these cases, the kids suffer.
This is why there are noble charities that I support that send home backpacks full of nutritious food with children. The government scaling back food stamps and instead increasing their partnership with these charities is a wonderful idea.
-
"unprotected sex out of wedlock"
Lol.
Damn...i knew i screwed this up. So that you can understand it: "want to eff dudes without a rubber?"
-
@MakeItRain come get your boy
-
It is definitely awesome that kids go hungry so we prove a point about responsibility to their insufficiently grateful parents.
IMO not enough people seem to care at all about the children in these discussions. I've said it before I don't mind losing some efficiency in the process if it results in more balanced meals for families.
That’s the problem so many people are overlooking that Trump is trying to address. Posters like Sys are good for popping in occasionally to espouse economic truisms about the superior efficiency of cash that completely misses the point: welfare is about providing assistance to the truly needy - and sometimes that isn’t so “efficient.”
People are spending their food stamps on unhealthy crap, and at much more expensive locations (convenience stores). Some of that can be fixed by tightening restrictions on the use of food stamps. But it doesn’t address people selling/bartering their food stamps for pennies on the dollar to buy booze, cigs, sex, drugs, etc. In all these cases, the kids suffer.
This is why there are noble charities that I support that send home backpacks full of nutritious food with children. The government scaling back food stamps and instead increasing their partnership with these charities is a wonderful idea.
Was this program designed to make food more nutritious for recipients or to reduce fraud associated with SNAP?
Also, lol that you started that post implying that you care about truly assisting the needy.
-
Point - KSUW
Michicat, try harder
-
It is definitely awesome that kids go hungry so we prove a point about responsibility to their insufficiently grateful parents.
IMO not enough people seem to care at all about the children in these discussions. I've said it before I don't mind losing some efficiency in the process if it results in more balanced meals for families.
That’s the problem so many people are overlooking that Trump is trying to address. Posters like Sys are good for popping in occasionally to espouse economic truisms about the superior efficiency of cash that completely misses the point: welfare is about providing assistance to the truly needy - and sometimes that isn’t so “efficient.”
People are spending their food stamps on unhealthy crap, and at much more expensive locations (convenience stores). Some of that can be fixed by tightening restrictions on the use of food stamps. But it doesn’t address people selling/bartering their food stamps for pennies on the dollar to buy booze, cigs, sex, drugs, etc. In all these cases, the kids suffer.
This is why there are noble charities that I support that send home backpacks full of nutritious food with children. The government scaling back food stamps and instead increasing their partnership with these charities is a wonderful idea.
Was this program designed to make food more nutritious for recipients or to reduce fraud associated with SNAP?
Also, lol that you started that post implying that you care about truly assisting the needy.
I will freely admit i don't give two shits about the needy outside of those that truly can't work (kids, elderly, disabled...and not because you're too fat)....get a rough ridin' job and if that's not enough to pay the bills get a second job. But that absolutely doesn't preclude me from wanting to get the best bang for the buck from the money the government is going spend (or in most instances, waste) on "welfare" programs. Anything that can be done to improve results, whether it's improve nutrition or reduce fraud, should be attempted and i'm not sure how you could even argue with that....outside of just bitching that someone doesn't care as much as you think they should.
-
I told you guys wb would be great in the pit :drool:
-
"unprotected sex out of wedlock"
Lol.
Damn...i knew i screwed this up. So that you can understand it: "want to eff dudes without a rubber?"
what you're implying here is that a pregnancy is the woman's fault. got it.
-
Can someone point me to details of all this fraud and waste occuring that necessitates dropping poor people food boxes like they are refugees Ina 3rd world country instead of American citizens?
-
It is definitely awesome that kids go hungry so we prove a point about responsibility to their insufficiently grateful parents.
IMO not enough people seem to care at all about the children in these discussions. I've said it before I don't mind losing some efficiency in the process if it results in more balanced meals for families.
That’s the problem so many people are overlooking that Trump is trying to address. Posters like Sys are good for popping in occasionally to espouse economic truisms about the superior efficiency of cash that completely misses the point: welfare is about providing assistance to the truly needy - and sometimes that isn’t so “efficient.”
People are spending their food stamps on unhealthy crap, and at much more expensive locations (convenience stores). Some of that can be fixed by tightening restrictions on the use of food stamps. But it doesn’t address people selling/bartering their food stamps for pennies on the dollar to buy booze, cigs, sex, drugs, etc. In all these cases, the kids suffer.
This is why there are noble charities that I support that send home backpacks full of nutritious food with children. The government scaling back food stamps and instead increasing their partnership with these charities is a wonderful idea.
Was this program designed to make food more nutritious for recipients or to reduce fraud associated with SNAP?
Also, lol that you started that post implying that you care about truly assisting the needy.
I will freely admit i don't give two shits about the needy outside of those that truly can't work (kids, elderly, disabled...and not because you're too fat)....get a rough ridin' job and if that's not enough to pay the bills get a second job. But that absolutely doesn't preclude me from wanting to get the best bang for the buck from the money the government is going spend (or in most instances, waste) on "welfare" programs. Anything that can be done to improve results, whether it's improve nutrition or reduce fraud, should be attempted and i'm not sure how you could even argue with that....outside of just bitching that someone doesn't care as much as you think they should.
Yeah there's no evidence that this would reduce fraud or improve nutrition. Fraud through SNAP is already extremely low and the purchasing behaviors of families on SNAP aren't significantly different than non-SNAP families. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-soda.html
Even then, there's no evidence this program would reduce the amount spent on soda.
-
"unprotected sex out of wedlock"
Lol.
Damn...i knew i screwed this up. So that you can understand it: "want to eff dudes without a rubber?"
what you're implying here is that a pregnancy is the woman's fault. got it.
I love this argument. So a woman is not responsible for her pregnancy...got it. You're the guy that gets mad at your wife's coworker for rough ridin' your wife. Pro tip...it's not the co-workers fault your wife spread her legs for him. He couldn't have mumped her without her consent and participation. So yeah, it's her fault.
-
It is definitely awesome that kids go hungry so we prove a point about responsibility to their insufficiently grateful parents.
IMO not enough people seem to care at all about the children in these discussions. I've said it before I don't mind losing some efficiency in the process if it results in more balanced meals for families.
That’s the problem so many people are overlooking that Trump is trying to address. Posters like Sys are good for popping in occasionally to espouse economic truisms about the superior efficiency of cash that completely misses the point: welfare is about providing assistance to the truly needy - and sometimes that isn’t so “efficient.”
People are spending their food stamps on unhealthy crap, and at much more expensive locations (convenience stores). Some of that can be fixed by tightening restrictions on the use of food stamps. But it doesn’t address people selling/bartering their food stamps for pennies on the dollar to buy booze, cigs, sex, drugs, etc. In all these cases, the kids suffer.
This is why there are noble charities that I support that send home backpacks full of nutritious food with children. The government scaling back food stamps and instead increasing their partnership with these charities is a wonderful idea.
Was this program designed to make food more nutritious for recipients or to reduce fraud associated with SNAP?
Also, lol that you started that post implying that you care about truly assisting the needy.
I will freely admit i don't give two shits about the needy outside of those that truly can't work (kids, elderly, disabled...and not because you're too fat)....get a rough ridin' job and if that's not enough to pay the bills get a second job. But that absolutely doesn't preclude me from wanting to get the best bang for the buck from the money the government is going spend (or in most instances, waste) on "welfare" programs. Anything that can be done to improve results, whether it's improve nutrition or reduce fraud, should be attempted and i'm not sure how you could even argue with that....outside of just bitching that someone doesn't care as much as you think they should.
Yeah there's no evidence that this would reduce fraud or improve nutrition. Fraud through SNAP is already extremely low and the purchasing behaviors of families on SNAP aren't significantly different than non-SNAP families. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-soda.html
Even then, there's no evidence this program would reduce the amount spent on soda.
Now there's a cogent argument i can respect. Good work mc. I disagree, but i appreciate the on-topic response.
-
You disagree with what part?
-
I love this argument. So a woman is not responsible for her pregnancy...got it. You're the guy that gets mad at your wife's coworker for rough ridin' your wife. Pro tip...it's not the co-workers fault your wife spread her legs for him. He couldn't have mumped her without her consent and participation. So yeah, it's her fault.
A woman isn't anymore responsible for her pregnancy than a man is but they have to deal with the consequences a lot more. Also, the most bang for you buck is proper education and available contraception.
Also, your philosophy of women being responsible for sex because a man's job is to eff anything that moves speaks quite highly of you.
-
To be clear, I believe most Americans (rich and poor) make really poor food choices. I also think we have reached a pretty bad place where some of the least healthy food available is also the cheapest. It wasn't until I took a college level nutrition class that I had any appreciation for making better meal decisions, so I don't expect others to know better automatically. I just think it would be great if we could incorporate some of this into our food stamps program. If the federal government is basically taking responsibility for feeding people, it should do it right.
-
You disagree with what part?
I disagree with MC's conclusions. Did you read the article? It does a pretty good job of stating the case that the SNAP program needs to be improved. If meals were provided instead of SNAP cards, people wouldn't have the opportunity to purchase sugary drinks or other crap food that will eventually give them diabetes and make them even more dependent and costly to taxpayers.
-
A lot of small towns in KS have lost their grocery stores, and have a lot of old people. Such boxes could be a godsend for them.
-
I love this argument. So a woman is not responsible for her pregnancy...got it. You're the guy that gets mad at your wife's coworker for rough ridin' your wife. Pro tip...it's not the co-workers fault your wife spread her legs for him. He couldn't have mumped her without her consent and participation. So yeah, it's her fault.
A woman isn't anymore responsible for her pregnancy than a man is but they have to deal with the consequences a lot more. Also, the most bang for you buck is proper education and available contraception.
Also, your philosophy of women being responsible for sex because a man's job is to eff anything that moves speaks quite highly of you.
Damnit, i did it again. I'm sorry. I don't really understand what you are saying but i'm truly sorry if i've offended you. women aren't responsible for the sex they engage in? men don't want to eff women? I'm confused.... i really don't get your argument, but again i apologize.
-
This topic has nothing to do with fraud obviously, as there is way bigger fraud in other government programs and paying the IRS...it's about punishing the "lazy" people and they should just appreciate what they get for free.
-
"unprotected sex out of wedlock"
Lol.
Damn...i knew i screwed this up. So that you can understand it: "want to eff dudes without a rubber?"
what you're implying here is that a pregnancy is the woman's fault. got it.
I love this argument. So a woman is not responsible for her pregnancy...got it. You're the guy that gets mad at your wife's coworker for rough ridin' your wife. Pro tip...it's not the co-workers fault your wife spread her legs for him. He couldn't have mumped her without her consent and participation. So yeah, it's her fault.
You're the guy who slut-shames women you have what you perceive to have what you perceive to be too many sexual partners but turns around and high-fives your buddy while begging to hear more details about all the "sluts" he's been banging lately. And that colors your world-view for literally everything you said in your post.
-
You disagree with what part?
I disagree with MC's conclusions. Did you read the article? It does a pretty good job of stating the case that the SNAP program needs to be improved. If meals were provided instead of SNAP cards, people wouldn't have the opportunity to purchase sugary drinks or other crap food that will eventually give them diabetes and make them even more dependent and costly to taxpayers.
the program being discussed doesn't provide meals or take away the opportunity to purchase sugary drinks
https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/Americas-Harvest-Box.pdf
-
man this whisker biscuit guy has got to go. I cant explain to my nephews that read the board all this filthy talk anymore.
-
This topic has nothing to do with fraud obviously, as there is way bigger fraud in other government programs and paying the IRS...it's about punishing the "lazy" people and they should just appreciate what they get for free.
How about we meet in the middle and agree it's both? :cheers:
Raise your hand if you are an employer? I'm one. I keep an ad running full time looking for unskilled labor at $12-14 per hour. If we get one applicant a month that can pass a drug test and make it to work on time i consider it a successful month. It's hilarious to listen to politicians or other people with opinions that have never gone thru the process of trying to hire someone. Please try it before you form an opinion or make an argument. They want to go on and on about the minimum wage needing to be raised....minimum wage??? I haven't hired someone at minimum wage in the last 20 years. I can assure you i'm not alone. Skilled labor employers have it even worse. Try to find a CNC operator or someone that can run run a machine. Talk to a banker...their lending lines are maxed out because builders can't get their homes built and sold in a timely manner because they can't find workers. People that want to work have no difficulty making enough money to stay off the gov't tit.
-
I love this argument. So a woman is not responsible for her pregnancy...got it. You're the guy that gets mad at your wife's coworker for rough ridin' your wife. Pro tip...it's not the co-workers fault your wife spread her legs for him. He couldn't have mumped her without her consent and participation. So yeah, it's her fault.
A woman isn't anymore responsible for her pregnancy than a man is but they have to deal with the consequences a lot more. Also, the most bang for you buck is proper education and available contraception.
Also, your philosophy of women being responsible for sex because a man's job is to eff anything that moves speaks quite highly of you.
Damnit, i did it again. I'm sorry. I don't really understand what you are saying but i'm truly sorry if i've offended you. women aren't responsible for the sex they engage in? men don't want to eff women? I'm confused.... i really don't get your argument, but again i apologize.
Nobody really expects you to get it so don't worry about it.
-
"unprotected sex out of wedlock"
Lol.
Damn...i knew i screwed this up. So that you can understand it: "want to eff dudes without a rubber?"
what you're implying here is that a pregnancy is the woman's fault. got it.
I love this argument. So a woman is not responsible for her pregnancy...got it. You're the guy that gets mad at your wife's coworker for rough ridin' your wife. Pro tip...it's not the co-workers fault your wife spread her legs for him. He couldn't have mumped her without her consent and participation. So yeah, it's her fault.
You're the guy who slut-shames women you have what you perceive to have what you perceive to be too many sexual partners but turns around and high-fives your buddy while begging to hear more details about all the "sluts" he's been banging lately. And that colors your world-view for literally everything you said in your post.
I'm sorry you cheated on your husband. It's not your fault....really it isn't.
-
This topic has nothing to do with fraud obviously, as there is way bigger fraud in other government programs and paying the IRS...it's about punishing the "lazy" people and they should just appreciate what they get for free.
How about we meet in the middle and agree it's both? :cheers:
Raise your hand if you are an employer? I'm one. I keep an ad running full time looking for unskilled labor at $12-14 per hour. If we get one applicant a month that can pass a drug test and make it to work on time i consider it a successful month. It's hilarious to listen to politicians or other people with opinions that have never gone thru the process of trying to hire someone. Please try it before you form an opinion or make an argument. They want to go on and on about the minimum wage needing to be raised....minimum wage??? I haven't hired someone at minimum wage in the last 20 years. I can assure you i'm not alone. Skilled labor employers have it even worse. Try to find a CNC operator or someone that can run run a machine. Talk to a banker...their lending lines are maxed out because builders can't get their homes built and sold in a timely manner because they can't find workers. People that want to work have no difficulty making enough money to stay off the gov't tit.
Sounds like the labor market is tight and you might need to offer a higher wage.
-
Have you considered that if you pay more than $12 to $14/hr that you might attract more suitable applicants?
-
Wait I was told all the illegals were taking these jobs from Americans? Maybe hire a coal miner?
-
Are #libbots Preprogrammed to make Shitty Arguments???
ITT, we have a premise that it would be good policy to provide healthier food to those on welfare, rather than allow the purchase of bad food which leads to poor health.
That was met with (least stupid to most stupid)
1. As a matter of economics, unrestricted cash is best -- complete red herring
2. Some accusation of nanny state -- it's a change to an existing nanny state program
3. Attack a poster's business model and practices -- stupid
4. This somehow is an attack on the poor -- stupider
5. An accusation of slut shaming -- stupidiest
6. Blanket it won't work statements -- lazy
Can you libbots not come up with anything substantive at all???
3.
-
Have you considered that if you pay more than $12 to $14/hr that you might attract more suitable applicants?
That's what you took from my post? Really? but thank you...you know i had never really considered that but what a great idea! thanks again! :cheers:
-
Are #libbots Preprogrammed to make Shitty Arguments???
ITT, we have a premise that it would be good policy to provide healthier food to those on welfare, rather than allow the purchase of bad food which leads to poor health.
That was met with (least stupid to most stupid)
1. As a matter of economics, unrestricted cash is best -- complete red herring
2. Some accusation of nanny state -- it's a change to an existing nanny state program
3. Attack a poster's business model and practices -- stupid
4. This somehow is an attack on the poor -- stupider
5. An accusation of slut shaming -- stupidiest
6. Blanket it won't work statements -- lazy
Can you libbots not come up with anything substantive at all???
3.
michigancat had a good opposing post......it's a start.
-
Well it was a pretty stupid post so I thought I'd help you out instead of going to making fun of you #1cat
-
Are #libbots Preprogrammed to make Shitty Arguments???
ITT, we have a premise that it would be good policy to provide healthier food to those on welfare, rather than allow the purchase of bad food which leads to poor health.
That was met with (least stupid to most stupid)
1. As a matter of economics, unrestricted cash is best -- complete red herring
2. Some accusation of nanny state -- it's a change to an existing nanny state program
3. Attack a poster's business model and practices -- stupid
4. This somehow is an attack on the poor -- stupider
5. An accusation of slut shaming -- stupidiest
6. Blanket it won't work statements -- lazy
Can you libbots not come up with anything substantive at all???
3.
michigancat had a good opposing post......it's a start.
I thought his argument that people on welfare eat the same as people not on welfare was also a red herring. The policy is to get people on welfare eating healthier, not conform their diet to other unhealthy people.
-
The policy is to get people on welfare eating healthier, not conform their diet to other unhealthy people.
no it isn't, at least it isn't mentioned in the proposal. Really, they don't mention any real benefits, other than perhaps all the food would be American grown/made? https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/Americas-Harvest-Box.pdf
-
The policy is to get people on welfare eating healthier, not conform their diet to other unhealthy people.
no it isn't, at least it isn't mentioned in the proposal. Really, they don't mention any real benefits, other than perhaps all the food would be American grown/made? https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/Americas-Harvest-Box.pdf
You are being deliberately obtuse.
-
"unprotected sex out of wedlock"
Lol.
Damn...i knew i screwed this up. So that you can understand it: "want to eff dudes without a rubber?"
what you're implying here is that a pregnancy is the woman's fault. got it.
I love this argument. So a woman is not responsible for her pregnancy...got it. You're the guy that gets mad at your wife's coworker for rough ridin' your wife. Pro tip...it's not the co-workers fault your wife spread her legs for him. He couldn't have mumped her without her consent and participation. So yeah, it's her fault.
You're the guy who slut-shames women you have what you perceive to have what you perceive to be too many sexual partners but turns around and high-fives your buddy while begging to hear more details about all the "sluts" he's been banging lately. And that colors your world-view for literally everything you said in your post.
I'm sorry you cheated on your husband. It's not your fault....really it isn't.
WB 0-2 in assumptions here. You have such antiquated thoughts regarding the concept of "personal responsibility."
-
A common criticism about SNAP is many indigent lack transportation to get to places that sell healthy food such that their only choice is food from a dollar store or gas station. This negates that problem, in part.
-
"unprotected sex out of wedlock"
Lol.
Damn...i knew i screwed this up. So that you can understand it: "want to eff dudes without a rubber?"
what you're implying here is that a pregnancy is the woman's fault. got it.
I love this argument. So a woman is not responsible for her pregnancy...got it. You're the guy that gets mad at your wife's coworker for rough ridin' your wife. Pro tip...it's not the co-workers fault your wife spread her legs for him. He couldn't have mumped her without her consent and participation. So yeah, it's her fault.
You're the guy who slut-shames women you have what you perceive to have what you perceive to be too many sexual partners but turns around and high-fives your buddy while begging to hear more details about all the "sluts" he's been banging lately. And that colors your world-view for literally everything you said in your post.
I'm sorry you cheated on your husband. It's not your fault....really it isn't.
WB 0-2 in assumptions here. You have such antiquated thoughts regarding the concept of "personal responsibility."
You are acting like an ignorant child who doesn't know how babies are made.
-
A common criticism about SNAP is many indigent lack transportation to get to places that sell healthy food such that their only choice is food from a dollar store or gas station. This negates that problem, in part.
This is one of the reasons I could be talked into a box thing. I would think having grocery stores as the distributors has a chance of getting more places opened in food deserts.
-
A common criticism about SNAP is many indigent lack transportation to get to places that sell healthy food such that their only choice is food from a dollar store or gas station. This negates that problem, in part.
This could definitely be a positive if it was required that boxes are all delivered directly to homes, but they aren't. It's up to states to decide how they're distributed.
-
This is a weird way to get rid of food deserts.
I'm interested in why this is an idea and the goals it wants to meet? I don't think it's a good or bad idea, I'm more laughing at the "let the lazy Poor's eat what we want then to eat" reactions on here.
-
This is a weird way to get rid of food deserts.
I'm interested in why this is an idea and the goals it wants to meet? I don't think it's a good or bad idea, I'm more laughing at the "let the lazy Poor's eat what we want then to eat" reactions on here.
It’s not their money so....
-
This is a weird way to get rid of food deserts.
I'm interested in why this is an idea and the goals it wants to meet? I don't think it's a good or bad idea, I'm more laughing at the "let the lazy Poor's eat what we want then to eat" reactions on here.
It’s not their money so....
With the money you donate to feed hungry people, do you get mad thinking about who they ate it and how?
Either you believe all people are deserving of grace and have inherent value, or you think that by being poor people deserve your contempt. It is obvious to anyone who reads you to know what you believe, so why bother with the pretense?
-
This is a weird way to get rid of food deserts.
I'm interested in why this is an idea and the goals it wants to meet? I don't think it's a good or bad idea, I'm more laughing at the "let the lazy Poor's eat what we want then to eat" reactions on here.
It’s not their money so....
With the money you donate to feed hungry people, do you get mad thinking about who they ate it and how?
Either you believe all people are deserving of grace and have inherent value, or you think that by being poor people deserve your contempt. It is obvious to anyone who reads you to know what you believe, so why bother with the pretense?
Either that or that? Those are the two choices?! :lol: Believe it or not, it is possible to be both charitable and have certain standards for that charity. I volunteer both time and money to the Kansas Food Bank Food 4 Kids backpack program and I recommend you all do the same. It is a wonderful charity. No child should go hungry, even if their parents have made terrible decisions.
http://www.kansasfoodbank.org/programs/food-4-kids/ (http://www.kansasfoodbank.org/programs/food-4-kids/)
-
nothing will drive you further from being a conservative as reading the posts on here...goodness.
-
you can tell which guys have had lots of girlfriends and which have not itt.
-
This is a weird way to get rid of food deserts.
I'm interested in why this is an idea and the goals it wants to meet? I don't think it's a good or bad idea, I'm more laughing at the "let the lazy Poor's eat what we want then to eat" reactions on here.
It’s not their money so....
With the money you donate to feed hungry people, do you get mad thinking about who they ate it and how?
Either you believe all people are deserving of grace and have inherent value, or you think that by being poor people deserve your contempt. It is obvious to anyone who reads you to know what you believe, so why bother with the pretense?
Either that or that? Those are the two choices?! :lol: Believe it or not, it is possible to be both charitable and have certain standards for that charity. I volunteer both time and money to the Kansas Food Bank Food 4 Kids backpack program and I recommend you all do the same. It is a wonderful charity. No child should go hungry, even if their parents have made terrible decisions.
http://www.kansasfoodbank.org/programs/food-4-kids/ (http://www.kansasfoodbank.org/programs/food-4-kids/)
Truly is a wonderful program.
I genuinely thank you for your support of the food bank.
-
just scratched a check to them.
-
Either you want all poor people to die of diabetes or you support this nutritional food program.
-bizarro kk
-
@MakeItRain come get your boy
Ugh, eff that guy
-
This topic has nothing to do with fraud obviously, as there is way bigger fraud in other government programs and paying the IRS...it's about punishing the "lazy" people and they should just appreciate what they get for free.
How about we meet in the middle and agree it's both? :cheers:
Raise your hand if you are an employer? I'm one. I keep an ad running full time looking for unskilled labor at $12-14 per hour. If we get one applicant a month that can pass a drug test and make it to work on time i consider it a successful month. It's hilarious to listen to politicians or other people with opinions that have never gone thru the process of trying to hire someone. Please try it before you form an opinion or make an argument. They want to go on and on about the minimum wage needing to be raised....minimum wage??? I haven't hired someone at minimum wage in the last 20 years. I can assure you i'm not alone. Skilled labor employers have it even worse. Try to find a CNC operator or someone that can run run a machine. Talk to a banker...their lending lines are maxed out because builders can't get their homes built and sold in a timely manner because they can't find workers. People that want to work have no difficulty making enough money to stay off the gov't tit.
I'm an employer, and I sure as eff don't ascribe to the bullshit you're peddling in here. You're a selfish prick, that's fine, this is America you can be that but none of us are buying your opinion having anything to do with you being a middle manager in HR. In fact you're most likely the farmer receiving hundreds of thousands in subsidies complaining about poor people on welfare, that's likely exactly what you are.
-
This topic has nothing to do with fraud obviously, as there is way bigger fraud in other government programs and paying the IRS...it's about punishing the "lazy" people and they should just appreciate what they get for free.
How about we meet in the middle and agree it's both? :cheers:
Raise your hand if you are an employer? I'm one. I keep an ad running full time looking for unskilled labor at $12-14 per hour. If we get one applicant a month that can pass a drug test and make it to work on time i consider it a successful month. It's hilarious to listen to politicians or other people with opinions that have never gone thru the process of trying to hire someone. Please try it before you form an opinion or make an argument. They want to go on and on about the minimum wage needing to be raised....minimum wage??? I haven't hired someone at minimum wage in the last 20 years. I can assure you i'm not alone. Skilled labor employers have it even worse. Try to find a CNC operator or someone that can run run a machine. Talk to a banker...their lending lines are maxed out because builders can't get their homes built and sold in a timely manner because they can't find workers. People that want to work have no difficulty making enough money to stay off the gov't tit.
I'm an employer, and I sure as eff don't ascribe to the bullshit you're peddling in here. You're a selfish prick, that's fine, this is America you can be that but none of us are buying your opinion having anything to do with you being a middle manager in HR. In fact you're most likely the farmer receiving hundreds of thousands in subsidies complaining about poor people on welfare, that's likely exactly what you are.
Such a well prepared and thoughtful response. "You're a selfish prick"... brilliant...quite the linguist. I'm with FSD here, why are you libs so horrible at debating a topic? Is your position really that bad that all you can do is launch personal attacks? Your entire post offers nothing to support whatever position you are trying to take....which is what exactly?
http://debatingforbeginners.blogspot.com/
-
Here you go libs...i'll start (I"m the best at debating):
LiberalBiscuit: First off WB, you're way the eff off topic here...this is a debate on how to best feed the poor (idiot/dipshit/fucktard)...name calling here is optional. But I'll indulge you: sure there is a shortage of skilled workers i think we can all agree on that. But it's not the governments responsibility to train your workers. If corporate America needs skilled workers, why don't they train them? Since you seem to love capitalism so much, why isn't capitalism taking care of the worker shortage thru training programs? You can't just sit on the sidelines and bitch, do something about it!
-
Here you go libs...i'll start:
LiberalBiscuit: First off WB, you're way the eff off topic here...this is a debate on how to best feed the poor (idiot/dipshit/fucktard)...name calling here is optional. But I'll indulge you: sure there is a shortage of skilled workers i think we can all agree on that. But it's not the governments responsibility to train your workers. If corporate America needs skilled workers, why don't they train them? Since you seem to love capitalism so much, why isn't capitalism taking care of the worker shortage thru training programs? You can't just sit on the sidelines and bitch, do something about it!
It's not that easy LB. You can't train people that won't show up in the first place. The problem isn't that there are no skilled workers, that problem is that there are no WORKERS. People are falling out of the workforce because they are more incentivized to NOT work than to work (https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/02/95-million-american-workers-not-in-us-labor-force.html) 95 million Americans are not counted as part of the labor force!! That's nearly a third of ALL Americans. SNAP participation has increased from 33 mil to 45 mil in the past 7 years!
-
Here you go libs...i'll start:
LiberalBiscuit: First off WB, you're way the eff off topic here...this is a debate on how to best feed the poor (idiot/dipshit/fucktard)...name calling here is optional. But I'll indulge you: sure there is a shortage of skilled workers i think we can all agree on that. But it's not the governments responsibility to train your workers. If corporate America needs skilled workers, why don't they train them? Since you seem to love capitalism so much, why isn't capitalism taking care of the worker shortage thru training programs? You can't just sit on the sidelines and bitch, do something about it!
It's not that easy LB. You can't train people that won't show up in the first place. The problem isn't that there are no skilled workers, that problem is that there are no WORKERS. People are falling out of the workforce because they are more incentivized to NOT work than to work (https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/02/95-million-american-workers-not-in-us-labor-force.html) 95 million Americans are not counted as part of the labor force!! That's nearly a third of ALL Americans. SNAP participation has increased from 33 mil to 45 mil in the past 7 years!
LiberalBiscuit: So, WB, you seem to be saying that people are more incentivized to NOT work than to work? Maybe if companies raised wages and paid more, that incentive would flip...you would bring people back into the workforce by providing a GREATER incentive to work than not to work. simple economics (fuckhead, bad person, dickwad...again name calling is optional here). And further, if you need more workers, why do you repub's/conservatives want to close the border??? That position seems completely antithetical to your contention that we need more workers! Why spend a bunch of money on a stupid wall to keep potential workers out????
-
WB has definitely made a strong case for more mental health coverage.
-
Due process tho :dunno:
-
WB has definitely made a strong case for more mental health coverage.
This is what you contributed to this discussion:
"I’m waiting for Whiskey Biscuit to post his tax returns to let us all know how much he pays in taxes"
Take some notes here Matt.
-
Listen, WB, we get it. You think welfare is bullshit and that the standards should only really apply to those who are literally unable to work. Bad news -- this institution is never going away and I doubt the standards ever get more restrictive than they are today.
Now, in the land of reality, we can either change the system to make it more inefficient to prove a point to hungry people (both lazy AND legitimately disabled) that they can't be trusted to buy their own food. Or we can keep the system as is, which is more efficient, and understand that some portion of the recipients may be scamming the system.
As someone who considers myself a conservative, I'm less interested in governments trying to teach lessons, and more interested in governments acting efficiently.
Side note: your "I'm the best at debating" schtick is absolutely insufferable. Like a smug high school freshman.
-
Listen, WB, we get it. You think welfare is bullshit and that the standards should only really apply to those who are literally unable to work. Bad news -- this institution is never going away and I doubt the standards ever get more restrictive than they are today.
Now, in the land of reality, we can either change the system to make it more inefficient to prove a point to hungry people (both lazy AND legitimately disabled) that they can't be trusted to buy their own food. Or we can keep the system as is, which is more efficient, and understand that some portion of the recipients may be scamming the system.
As someone who considers myself a conservative, I'm less interested in governments trying to teach lessons, and more interested in governments acting efficiently.
Side note: your "I'm the best at debating" schtick is absolutely insufferable. Like a smug high school freshman.
"Like a smug high school freshman" It was a good start but ended as expected. Again with a personal attack. I just don't get it. Not sure where i said i was the best at debating, i am simply trying to get liberals to make an actual ARGUMENT instead of just typing "you're a prick" "You're a smug freshman" "post your tax returns", "you hate women" etc
Your insults really hurt my feelings Dlew. Now you have to live with that knowledge. :Crybaby:
-
"Like a smug high school freshman" It was a good start but ended as expected. Again with a personal attack. I just don't get it. Not sure where i said i was the best at debating, i am simply trying to get liberals to make an actual ARGUMENT instead of just typing "you're a prick" "You're a smug freshman" "post your tax returns", "you hate women" etc
Your insults really hurt my feelings Dlew. Now you have to live with that knowledge. :Crybaby:
It was the part where you had a conversation with yourself to give everyone a proper internet argument exhibition.
-
Found it Dlew...my bad
Here you go libs...i'll start (I"m the best at debating):
LiberalBiscuit: First off WB, you're way the eff off topic here...this is a debate on how to best feed the poor (idiot/dipshit/fucktard)...name calling here is optional. But I'll indulge you: sure there is a shortage of skilled workers i think we can all agree on that. But it's not the governments responsibility to train your workers. If corporate America needs skilled workers, why don't they train them? Since you seem to love capitalism so much, why isn't capitalism taking care of the worker shortage thru training programs? You can't just sit on the sidelines and bitch, do something about it!
-
you understand how "shtick" differs from "statement," right?
-
Here you go libs...i'll start (I"m the best at debating):
LiberalBiscuit: First off WB, you're way the eff off topic here...this is a debate on how to best feed the poor (idiot/dipshit/fucktard)...name calling here is optional. But I'll indulge you: sure there is a shortage of skilled workers i think we can all agree on that. But it's not the governments responsibility to train your workers. If corporate America needs skilled workers, why don't they train them? Since you seem to love capitalism so much, why isn't capitalism taking care of the worker shortage thru training programs? You can't just sit on the sidelines and bitch, do something about it!
You are trying to hire skilled workers at under $15/HR? Holy fuk
-
Here you go libs...i'll start (I"m the best at debating):
LiberalBiscuit: First off WB, you're way the eff off topic here...this is a debate on how to best feed the poor (idiot/dipshit/fucktard)...name calling here is optional. But I'll indulge you: sure there is a shortage of skilled workers i think we can all agree on that. But it's not the governments responsibility to train your workers. If corporate America needs skilled workers, why don't they train them? Since you seem to love capitalism so much, why isn't capitalism taking care of the worker shortage thru training programs? You can't just sit on the sidelines and bitch, do something about it!
You are trying to hire skilled workers at under $15/HR? Holy fuk
Not exactly sure who this is addressed to but...my post of $12-14 is an "always open, always hiring" ad for unskiilled workers.
-
Here you go libs...i'll start (I"m the best at debating):
LiberalBiscuit: First off WB, you're way the eff off topic here...this is a debate on how to best feed the poor (idiot/dipshit/fucktard)...name calling here is optional. But I'll indulge you: sure there is a shortage of skilled workers i think we can all agree on that. But it's not the governments responsibility to train your workers. If corporate America needs skilled workers, why don't they train them? Since you seem to love capitalism so much, why isn't capitalism taking care of the worker shortage thru training programs? You can't just sit on the sidelines and bitch, do something about it!
You are trying to hire skilled workers at under $15/HR? Holy fuk
Not exactly sure who this is addressed to but...my post of $12-14 is an "always open, always hiring" ad for unskiilled workers.
I thought you were bemoaning the lack of skilled labor. In any event, you will get what you pay for in hiring employees. Skilled or unskilled.
-
I tried to tell him that 'stone, I don't think this dude understands the labor market
-
I get wanting to pay your employees as little as possible because you put more in your pocket. But being upset at the welfare program because it won't cut back and effectively drive those desperate people into your waiting arms is weak.
-
I get wanting to pay your employees as little as possible because you put more in your pocket. But being upset at the welfare program because it won't cut back and effectively drive those desperate people into your waiting arms is weak.
OMG. I give up. If there was an emoticon with a white flag waving i would post it. I can't do this. :buh-bye:
-
There is an emoticon with a white flag, and you did not post it. Big surprise there.
:White flag:
-
Too lazy to do the proper emotion research smdh
-
computers are hard for certain segments of our society
-
Yikes. I’m surprised WB was able to found this blog to begin with
-
Yikes. I’m surprised WB was able to found this blog to begin with
He didn't, tho. Unless I'm sorely mistaken.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
WB wins round 2.
It seems like the policy is completely unassailable. Very rare in this day and age. Compliments to Don.
-
WB wins round 2.
It seems like the policy is completely unassailable. Very rare in this day and age. Compliments to Don.
you guys love socialism!
-
Welfare = Socialism
:runaway: