I'm not...so which one of you five are getting them?

TerryRC wrote:Again, I'd like to point out that "qualifying" is not the same as "getting".

Just because 1 in 6 qualify for the stamps doesn't mean 1 in 5 signs up.

Food stamps suck. Either what can be purchased needs to be restricted more or the fed needs to go to food banks and just give the needy their supplies.

The stamp program is too fraud-prone but I don't want to see little ones go hungry.

Some more "government accountability", ...... HUH?

.

Some more "government accountability", ...... HUH?

If you are talking about my typo, good one, he, he. When you become perfect (or even admit to your occasional errors), I may even take it into account.

If you were trying to be serious, I'd say the government has tried by going to the card system. For many years, however, you could sell your stamps on the black market for 50-60 cents on the dollar. I'd say the accountability problems belong to the people more than the fed. Perhaps you meant government "oversight"?

Regardless, "qualifying" for food stamps is not the same as "getting" food stamps regardless of what the original poster implied. I have known a number of people that were too proud to take charity of any form.

Is giving food stamps a guarantee that children will not be neglected? Why not make people who get public assistance take urine tests for drugs--so that food stamps are not used as an underground currency? Why not make people who are getting assistance prove that they buy food and clothing for their children? I remember the health nurse coming by our school and checking children for health conditions.

Did IQ's suddenly drop while I was away?

I clearly said I was against the present system as it was too fraud-prone. That doesn't mean that I want it eliminated entirely. That is for "compassionate" conservatives.

To ask you a question in return - what do you do if you make drug-tests mandatory to get food stamps? Starve the kids because the parents have a problem (or perhaps no problem at all except they smoke a little grass once in awhile)? Take the kids away, even if they aren't neglected and further burden an already burdened child services system?

The new card/signature system is supposed to cut down on the black market. We will just have to wait and see.

TerryRC wrote:
The new card/signature system is supposed to cut down on the black market. We will just have to wait and see.

I know of the following happening. A woman will go shopping at Wal Mart, (Mary tightwad) go to the checkout line and make a call. Another woman (Suzygottogettothedogtrack) will come in, stand in line while the Mary will leave and go to Goody's and shop. Suzy checks out paying with her state issued card, takes the groceries out (and in some instances will load them in Mary's car), get's 50 cents on the dollar for the food from Mary and heads over to the track. It happens all the time in Cross Lanes.

As long as the government is involved, there's going to be fraud, waste and mismanagement.

TerryRC wrote:Some more "government accountability", ...... HUH?

If you are talking about my typo, good one, he, he. When you become perfect (or even admit to your occasional errors), I may even take it into account.

What part of "The stamp program is too fraud-prone " are you saying was a "typo"?

.

What part of "The stamp program is too fraud-prone " are you saying was a "typo"?

I wrote "1 in 6" followed by "1 in 5".

TerryRC wrote:What part of "The stamp program is too fraud-prone " are you saying was a "typo"?

I wrote "1 in 6" followed by "1 in 5".

Well "DUH", then I am just hafta gonna ask, ......

Just what the hell does your "government accountability" have to do with your "typo"?

And just what the hell makes "you think" my comment about your stated "government accountability" had anything to do with your "typo"?

And you deny your mind is FUBAR, ................. GIMME A BREAK.

.

Because you quoted me [the "1 in 6" followed by the "1 in 5"] and then wrote a phrase about another example of government accountability (and I work for the state and "accounting" is so close to "accountability").

I thought you were being witty (and even a bit funny). I see I gave you too much credit, Sam. Never fear - it won't happen again.

Regardless of the lead poster's insinuations, "qualifying" is not the same as "getting". Just because 1 in 6 WV'ians qualify for the stamps doesn't mean 1 in 6 is getting them. I know this to be a fact.

TerryRC wrote:Because you quoted me [the "1 in 6" followed by the "1 in 5"] and then wrote a phrase about another example of government accountability (and I work for the state and "accounting" is so close to "accountability").

I thought you were being witty (and even a bit funny). I see I gave you too much credit, Sam. Never fear - it won't happen again.

Regardless of the lead poster's insinuations, "qualifying" is not the same as "getting". Just because 1 in 6 WV'ians qualify for the stamps doesn't mean 1 in 6 is getting them. I know this to be a fact.

FUBAR for sure, TRC, ....... FUBAR for sure.

Or was that just YOUR typical CYA responce?

Here TRC, read my post again with emphasis on my quote of you.

SamCogar wrote:

TerryRC wrote:Again, I'd like to point out that "qualifying" is not the same as "getting".

Just because 1 in 6 qualify for the stamps doesn't mean 1 in 5 signs up.

Food stamps suck. Either what can be purchased needs to be restricted more or the fed needs to go to food banks and just give the needy their supplies.

The stamp program is too fraud-prone but I don't want to see little ones go hungry.

Some more "government accountability", ...... HUH? .

Look dumbass, there are only two (2) segments in your above written text that can possibly be associated directly with the meaning of "government accountability" in the context which you originally stated said ....... and that "1 in 6" thingy you noted is not one of them.

.

TerryRC wrote:Regardless of the lead poster's insinuations, "qualifying" is not the same as "getting". Just because 1 in 6 WV'ians qualify for the stamps doesn't mean 1 in 6 is getting them. I know this to be a fact.

If you qualify for them TC, go get them. There is no shame in being poor.

RC,

Keep running circles around Aaron. Today alone he's called you liberal and poor. I want to know what's next.

So you took something different from his last statement?

Yes I did. It is quite likely he has been through some tough times in the past but didn't apply for assistance. It is also entirely possible he knows or has known people eligible for food stamps and other programs that haven't participated in them.

Not everyone is willing to stick their handout for everything they can possibly get. Some people have principles and standards and stick to them.

Stephanie wrote:Yes I did. It is quite likely he has been through some tough times in the past but didn't apply for assistance. It is also entirely possible he knows or has known people eligible for food stamps and other programs that haven't participated in them.

Not everyone is willing to stick their handout for everything they can possibly get. Some people have principles and standards and stick to them.

I've been poor before; lost my job, slept in my car. Never got any assistance except for a brief stint on unemployment. While that was not enough for rent (hence the car sleeping) it did allow me to get to my next job where I made 3x as much as I had in the lob I had lost.

There is no shame, nor should any be implied, in being under or unemployed. We as a nation should have compassionate programs for those who need them, especially since poverty is often by the design of the Government.

In RI temporary disability insurance is deducted from your wages each payroll period. I collected that twice for six weeks after the birth of two of my children. I figured then, and do now, I had that coming.

Look dumbass, there are only two (2) segments in your above written text that can possibly be associated directly with the meaning of "government accountability" in the context which you originally stated said ....... and that "1 in 6" thingy you noted is not one of them.

Suck it Sam.

I said "just because 1 in 6 qualify doesn't mean 1 in 5 signs up for them". An obvious mistake.

You followed that with your "government accountability" thing, knowing full well I work for the government.

I truly thought you were making a funny but qualified my response in case you weren't. Now I'm glad I did.

Go back and read the thread, dumbass.

What made you so cranky - run out of Bud Light at the corner store?

If you qualify for them TC, go get them. There is no shame in being poor.

Poor, Aaron?

The shame is when people take things they don't need.

My kids were fed, the bills were paid and I could afford to commute to work. The wolf was always at the door (still is), but we weren't suffering. I consider that to be well off.

I have known other people that did the same, here and in NY.

Don't think for a minute, though, that I wouldn't have taken them if I couldn't feed my kids. I still would. Pride is nothing in the face of a suffering child.

Yes I did. It is quite likely he has been through some tough times in the past but didn't apply for assistance. It is also entirely possible he knows or has known people eligible for food stamps and other programs that haven't participated in them.

Both, actually.

Not everyone is willing to stick their handout for everything they can possibly get. Some people have principles and standards and stick to them.

And thank you.

I think this is no different than affirmative action. The institution itself is highly suspect, but if you qualify, you might as well use it. I think this way particularly because of all of the abuse--if someone is actually going to use WIC on food for mom and the kids, or food stamps on food rather than vodka, then I would rather they do so, whether going hungry or not, given that so many abuse the system.

To put it another way, given how many pit vipers abuse the system of social welfare in this country, I'd rather people who would use the system legitimately actually use the system, as long as it exists.

To put it another way, we spend billions of dollars on "food" that ends up going to "booze," it would be nice for it to actually go to necessary food on occasion.

TerryRC wrote:Look dumbass, there are only two (2) segments in your above written text that can possibly be associated directly with the meaning of "government accountability" in the context which you originally stated said ....... and that "1 in 6" thingy you noted is not one of them.

Suck it Sam.

I said "just because 1 in 6 qualify doesn't mean 1 in 5 signs up for them". An obvious mistake.

You followed that with your "government accountability" thing, .........

Terry, you are a damnable devious liar, ...... my comment did not follow "THAT" comment, ........ it followed the last comment of the quote, this one, to wit:

"The stamp program is too fraud-prone but .... "

and here is my post to prove it, to wit:

SamCogar wrote:

TerryRC wrote:Again, I'd like to point out that "qualifying" is not the same as "getting".

Just because 1 in 6 qualify for the stamps doesn't mean 1 in 5 signs up.

Food stamps suck. Either what can be purchased needs to be restricted more or the fed needs to go to food banks and just give the needy their supplies.

The stamp program is too fraud-prone but I don't want to see little ones go hungry.

Some more "government accountability", ...... HUH?

As even a liar can see, ...... my "government accountability" statement followed your statement in/of your 4th paragraph, ........ not your 2nd paragraph.

TerryRC wrote:...... your "government accountability" thing, knowing full well I work for the government.

YES, I know full well you work for the government ........... and I knew that when you stated said "government accountability" thingy in another post of another thread lauding their accountability. You lauded government action in the other post and berated their actions in the post in question in this thread and that is why I posted said in my response.

TRC, you berate the government but you "don't take it personal" and you don't get pissed off at yourself, ........... but if I berate the government you "take it personal" and you get pissed off a me. If that is not a sign of a guilty conscious, then it is a sign of deviousness and dishonesty.

You will do anything to CYA, ignorance and/or incompetency.

And "YES", Terry, my comment in question FOLLOWED your comment in question.

And my post in question FOLLOWED your post in question.

And this post FOLLOWS all the preceeding posts in this thread.

If I had meant for my "government accountability" statement to be SPECIFICALLY in reply to your #2 paragraph statement ..... I would have injected it into your quoted text specifically at that point.

TerryRC wrote:I truly thought you were making a funny but qualified my response in case you weren't. Now I'm glad I did.

HORSEPUCKY, ....... counting and accountability are not the same. And if I were to somehow "make a funny" relating to the two words ........ you sure as hell "wouldn't get it" anymore than you "get" the funnies posted by Hagdorn.

TerryRC wrote:What made you so cranky - run out of Bud Light at the corner store?

NO, devious dishonest people make me cranky, ....... especially when they attempt to defame me via their actions.

.

Wonder why folks don't exhibit the same disdain and outrage over corporate welfare as they do against poor people.?

Remember on the old forum how James and others would get so wound up because a poor mother would buy her kid a bag of potato chips instead of getting him a potato to cook?

When the gvt. spends a little money on poor people who need it, they call it "welfare" or "socialism" or a "handout".

But when they give a whole lot of money to a rich corporation that does not need it then it is called "economic development".

Blah, blah blah, Sam.

Go back and read. I thought you were being witty but qualified my statement and addressed where some of the accountability needs to lie.

I made a mistake and gave you credit for a sense of humor that you clearly do not possess. I most humbly apologize and am left to wonder why you divert our arguments into nitpicking?

I think this is no different than affirmative action. The institution itself is highly suspect, but if you qualify, you might as well use it. I think this way particularly because of all of the abuse--if someone is actually going to use WIC on food for mom and the kids, or food stamps on food rather than vodka, then I would rather they do so, whether going hungry or not, given that so many abuse the system.

Sheik, if people that do not really need the system avoid using it, even if they qualify, it frees up money for those that do, no? Even if some of the extra money does go to abusers of the system, the rest of it gets to the needy.

Greed is bad. I don't take things I don't need just because someone offers it to me. That sort of behavior has a way of enslaving a man.

TerryRC wrote:Blah, blah blah, Sam.

Go back and read. I thought you were being witty but qualified my statement and addressed where some of the accountability needs to lie.

I made a mistake and gave you credit for a sense of humor ....

HORSESHIDT this time, ....... you have never thought anyone to be witty on these Forums and thus have never given anyone credit for having a sense of humor.

And you sure as hell wouldn't give me credit for said anymore than you would give Hagdorn credit for his humor.

GEEEZUS, you would rather take poison ......... than give either of us credit for anything relative to a misstatement by you or your ignorance of a subject.

shermangeneral wrote:Wonder why folks don't exhibit the same disdain and outrage over corporate welfare as they do against poor people.?

Remember on the old forum how James and others would get so wound up because a poor mother would buy her kid a bag of potato chips instead of getting him a potato to cook?

When the gvt. spends a little money on poor people who need it, they call it "welfare" or "socialism" or a "handout".

But when they give a whole lot of money to a rich corporation that does not need it then it is called "economic development".

No matter how you view it, economic development or corporate welfare, it doesn't change the fact that handout's, welfare and socialism, no matter how well meaning the concept, all are unconstitutional.