Tea Party GOP Congressman busted for Cocaine

[kalm]

There shouldn't be any food stamps. Nobody should be forced through taxation and redistribution to feed anybody else. If private charities want to do it, fine. But government shouldn't be involved in it.

Agreed. There also shouldn't be state fish and game departments. Nobody should be forced through taxation and redistribution to manage fisheries and boat launches for JohnStOnge to recreate at. Not to mention paying state wildlife biologists….

[BDKJMU]

There shouldn't be any food stamps. Nobody should be forced through taxation and redistribution to feed anybody else. If private charities want to do it, fine. But government shouldn't be involved in it.

Agreed.

[kalm]

There shouldn't be any food stamps. Nobody should be forced through taxation and redistribution to feed anybody else. If private charities want to do it, fine. But government shouldn't be involved in it.

Agreed.

Nobody should be forced through taxation and redistribution to pay to prosecute people for non-violent drug crimes...

[BDKJMU]

There shouldn't be any food stamps. Nobody should be forced through taxation and redistribution to feed anybody else. If private charities want to do it, fine. But government shouldn't be involved in it.

Agreed. There also shouldn't be state fish and game departments. Nobody should be forced through taxation and redistribution to manage fisheries and boat launches for JohnStOnge to recreate at. Not to mention paying state wildlife biologists….

No, there should be. And they should be self supporting (and probably are) through:
-hunting licenses, tags, & stamps
-fishing licenses
-usages fees
-fines collected
-sales taxes collected from the sales of hunting, fishing, boating, & outdoor recreation items.
-lodging taxes collected from sportsmen who travel to areas to hunt, fish, & recreate
-meals taxes collected from sportsmen who travel to areas to hunt, fish, & recreate

Sportsmen are a net positive on the economy. Food stamp recipients are a drag on the economy..

[kalm]

Agreed. There also shouldn't be state fish and game departments. Nobody should be forced through taxation and redistribution to manage fisheries and boat launches for JohnStOnge to recreate at. Not to mention paying state wildlife biologists….

No, there should be. And they should be self supporting (and probably are) through:
-hunting licenses, tags, & stamps
-fishing licenses
-usages fees
-fines collected
-sales taxes collected from the sales of hunting, fishing, boating, & outdoor recreation items.
-lodging taxes collected from sportsmen who travel to areas to hunt, fish, & recreate
-meals taxes collected from sportsmen who travel to areas to hunt, fish, & recreate

Sportsmen are a net positive on the economy. Food stamp recipients are a drag on the economy..

Yeah... I'm sure state governments are turning a profit on that. Tax loving fascist...

[JohnStOnge]

Agreed. There also shouldn't be state fish and game departments. Nobody should be forced through taxation and redistribution to manage fisheries and boat launches for JohnStOnge to recreate at. Not to mention paying state wildlife biologists….

The difference between something like a food stamp program and something like a fish and game Department is that a food stamp program is targeted for individuals while a fish and game department is designed to promote the general welfare. It's kind of like the idea of building roads and highways. It's targeted for the population in general to facilitate public activity.

[kalm]

Agreed. There also shouldn't be state fish and game departments. Nobody should be forced through taxation and redistribution to manage fisheries and boat launches for JohnStOnge to recreate at. Not to mention paying state wildlife biologists….

The difference between something like a food stamp program and something like a fish and game Department is that a food stamp program is targeted for individuals while a fish and game department is designed to promote the general welfare. It's kind of like the idea of building roads and highways. It's targeted for the population in general to facilitate public activity.

[JohnStOnge]

There is a difference Kalm. The line is blurred. But some expenditures for for things that promote the general welfare and others are attempts to ensure the well being of each individual.

One example of an expenditure to promote the general welfare is the interstate highway system. It's there for anybody with a vehicle to use. Nobody worries about tracking who is using it. You don't have to be found to be "eligible" to use it except that States require drivers' licenses. It's designed to address the general function of the population.

An example of an expenditure aimed at attempting to ensure the well being of each individual is the one we're talking about. The Food Stamp program. It's an attempt to make sure each person gets enough food when they can't acquire it for themselves. Each person who receives the program is known and there is a process for determining whether they are eligible or not. Government judges that each of them, as an individual, needs help and it takes the money of others in order to provide that help.

Government should not be involved in that. There should be no such thing as a program such that some people are excluded from the benefits because government judges that they don't need them while others get them because government judges that they do. If government can't afford to do it for everybody, it shouldn't be doing it. Programs such as the food stamp program are such that the people who are paying for them can't access them. Meanwhile the people who contribute least, and in many cases nothing, to the operation of the society enjoy the benefits. It creates a culture of parasites.

Doing something like building an interstate highway system or establishing an entity to manage fish and game resources isn't going to do that.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW on the original issue I think Cocaine ought to be legal but even if it were legal I would have no problem with telling people that a condition of getting food stamps is that they don't do recreational drugs and that they have to be drug tested in order to continue to receive them. Nobody is violating your rights by doing that. You're getting a handout and the people giving you the handout have a right to establish whatever conditions they want. And if they are concerned that if you do recreational drugs you're going to spend money on that while you don't even have enough money feed yourself and/or your kids that's understandable.

If you don't want to accept the conditions don't ask for the handout.

[kalm]

There is a difference Kalm. The line is blurred. But some expenditures for for things that promote the general welfare and others are attempts to ensure the well being of each individual.

One example of an expenditure to promote the general welfare is the interstate highway system. It's there for anybody with a vehicle to use. Nobody worries about tracking who is using it. You don't have to be found to be "eligible" to use it except that States require drivers' licenses. It's designed to address the general function of the population.

An example of an expenditure aimed at attempting to ensure the well being of each individual is the one we're talking about. The Food Stamp program. It's an attempt to make sure each person gets enough food when they can't acquire it for themselves. Each person who receives the program is known and there is a process for determining whether they are eligible or not. Government judges that each of them, as an individual, needs help and it takes the money of others in order to provide that help.

Government should not be involved in that. There should be no such thing as a program such that some people are excluded from the benefits because government judges that they don't need them while others get them because government judges that they do. If government can't afford to do it for everybody, it shouldn't be doing it. Programs such as the food stamp program are such that the people who are paying for them can't access them. Meanwhile the people who contribute least, and in many cases nothing, to the operation of the society enjoy the benefits. It creates a culture of parasites.

Doing something like building an interstate highway system or establishing an entity to manage fish and game resources isn't going to do that.

You know what? I think that's a pretty good line to set. I think I still disagree and could argue that helping poor people - especially children with food, probable benefits everyone more than stocking rainbow trout in Louisiana, but I'll have to sit and ponder it a bit more.

[D1B]

There is a difference Kalm. The line is blurred. But some expenditures for for things that promote the general welfare and others are attempts to ensure the well being of each individual.

One example of an expenditure to promote the general welfare is the interstate highway system. It's there for anybody with a vehicle to use. Nobody worries about tracking who is using it. You don't have to be found to be "eligible" to use it except that States require drivers' licenses. It's designed to address the general function of the population.

An example of an expenditure aimed at attempting to ensure the well being of each individual is the one we're talking about. The Food Stamp program. It's an attempt to make sure each person gets enough food when they can't acquire it for themselves. Each person who receives the program is known and there is a process for determining whether they are eligible or not. Government judges that each of them, as an individual, needs help and it takes the money of others in order to provide that help.

Government should not be involved in that. There should be no such thing as a program such that some people are excluded from the benefits because government judges that they don't need them while others get them because government judges that they do. If government can't afford to do it for everybody, it shouldn't be doing it. Programs such as the food stamp program are such that the people who are paying for them can't access them. Meanwhile the people who contribute least, and in many cases nothing, to the operation of the society enjoy the benefits. It creates a culture of parasites.

Doing something like building an interstate highway system or establishing an entity to manage fish and game resources isn't going to do that.

You simply don't understand how you benefit from food stamps.

Without food stamps and rent assistance, guess where all the poor would be living? Yep, all along the shore of that polluted shithole where you crappy fish. And, there would be no more fish and animals left.

That ride to the bait shop to pick up minnows? How would you like to get robbed, beaten to death and your car totaled by roving bands of disgruntled poor people? That's exactly what would happen.

Satiate them. Make sure they have their TV and fried food and false hopes and they will, for the most part, not kill us.

So, the benefit to all is an orderly society - and we get it fairly cheap if you think about it.

[clenz]

This seems appropriate here


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRRwZDSmTVI[/youtube]

[D1B]

This seems appropriate here


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRRwZDSmTVI[/youtube]

1. This is staged. Production was paid for by Blandy and BDNUTJB.

2. Statistics show the great majority of welfare recipients are the working poor. Bundy and BDBALSNFR can vilify the millions of poor all they want, but the fact remains these people are not only working but probably working harder than most conk fucks.

[kalm]

This seems appropriate here


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRRwZDSmTVI[/youtube]

Serious question: what percentage actually think like that?

[D1B]

This seems appropriate here


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRRwZDSmTVI[/youtube]

Serious question: what percentage actually think like that?

And what percentage is listening to conservative radio and engaged enough to pick up a phone and defend a clearly delusional position using the exact same prose Limbaugh uses daily to vilify welfare recipients?

[BlueHen86]

There is a difference Kalm. The line is blurred. But some expenditures for for things that promote the general welfare and others are attempts to ensure the well being of each individual.

One example of an expenditure to promote the general welfare is the interstate highway system. It's there for anybody with a vehicle to use. Nobody worries about tracking who is using it. You don't have to be found to be "eligible" to use it except that States require drivers' licenses. It's designed to address the general function of the population.

An example of an expenditure aimed at attempting to ensure the well being of each individual is the one we're talking about. The Food Stamp program. It's an attempt to make sure each person gets enough food when they can't acquire it for themselves. Each person who receives the program is known and there is a process for determining whether they are eligible or not. Government judges that each of them, as an individual, needs help and it takes the money of others in order to provide that help.

Government should not be involved in that. There should be no such thing as a program such that some people are excluded from the benefits because government judges that they don't need them while others get them because government judges that they do. If government can't afford to do it for everybody, it shouldn't be doing it. Programs such as the food stamp program are such that the people who are paying for them can't access them. Meanwhile the people who contribute least, and in many cases nothing, to the operation of the society enjoy the benefits. It creates a culture of parasites.

Doing something like building an interstate highway system or establishing an entity to manage fish and game resources isn't going to do that.

Food stamp recipients may be a drag on society, but they do contribute demand. The stores where they shop benefit from their patronage. Food stamp recipients usually aren't in a position to save money, so everything that they receive goes back into circulation thereby helping to drive the economy. It would be better if they worked and earned their money, but don't say that they contribute nothing.

[D1B]

There is a difference Kalm. The line is blurred. But some expenditures for for things that promote the general welfare and others are attempts to ensure the well being of each individual.

One example of an expenditure to promote the general welfare is the interstate highway system. It's there for anybody with a vehicle to use. Nobody worries about tracking who is using it. You don't have to be found to be "eligible" to use it except that States require drivers' licenses. It's designed to address the general function of the population.

An example of an expenditure aimed at attempting to ensure the well being of each individual is the one we're talking about. The Food Stamp program. It's an attempt to make sure each person gets enough food when they can't acquire it for themselves. Each person who receives the program is known and there is a process for determining whether they are eligible or not. Government judges that each of them, as an individual, needs help and it takes the money of others in order to provide that help.

Government should not be involved in that. There should be no such thing as a program such that some people are excluded from the benefits because government judges that they don't need them while others get them because government judges that they do. If government can't afford to do it for everybody, it shouldn't be doing it. Programs such as the food stamp program are such that the people who are paying for them can't access them. Meanwhile the people who contribute least, and in many cases nothing, to the operation of the society enjoy the benefits. It creates a culture of parasites.

Doing something like building an interstate highway system or establishing an entity to manage fish and game resources isn't going to do that.

Food stamp recipients may be a drag on society, but they do contribute demand. The stores where they shop benefit from their patronage. Food stamp recipients usually aren't in a position to save money, so everything that they receive goes back into circulation thereby helping to drive the economy. It would be better if they worked and earned their money, but don't say that they contribute nothing.

They also work, tough jobs, for very low wages. Whole industries like fast food, service and hospitality, food maufacturing, etc. cannot survive without them.

[Skjellyfetti]

a fish and game department is designed to promote the general welfare.

That's a pretty loose interpretation of "general welfare"....

Largemouth bass = general welfare.
Food = not general welfare.