On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 07:18:07 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:00:31 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 07/08/2011 4:18 PM, wrote:
From an article in the Economist:

"Food stamps, they argue, are far from lavish. Only those with incomes
of 130% of the poverty level or less are eligible for them. The amount
each person receives depends on their income, assets and family size,
but the average benefit is $133 a month and the maximum, for an
individual with no income at all, is $200."

and

"Food stamps also help stimulate the economy more than other forms of
government spending, points out Jim Weill of Food Research and Action
Centre, a charity, since their recipients are so poor that they tend
to spend them immediately. When Moody?s Analytics assessed different
forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective,
increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent.
Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts
yielded a dollar or less. All the talk in Washington these days,
however, is of cutbacks?even for the hungry."

Of course, the asshole teabagger Republicans don't give a crap about
the poor.

Hey, if the poor don't care why should we? After all they voted Obama
which means they don' care about America.


says the guy who wants america destroyed as long as the rich are
protected....and are white

Destroying the rich, destroys the poor.


Huh? So, you believe that the rich should not pay their fair share and
that any tax or imposition on them destroys America. You probably
claim to be a teagagger.

On 09/08/2011 5:18 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:00:31 -0600,
wrote:

On 07/08/2011 4:18 PM, wrote:
From an article in the Economist:

"Food stamps, they argue, are far from lavish. Only those with incomes
of 130% of the poverty level or less are eligible for them. The amount
each person receives depends on their income, assets and family size,
but the average benefit is $133 a month and the maximum, for an
individual with no income at all, is $200."

and

"Food stamps also help stimulate the economy more than other forms of
government spending, points out Jim Weill of Food Research and Action
Centre, a charity, since their recipients are so poor that they tend
to spend them immediately. When Moody?s Analytics assessed different
forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective,
increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent.
Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts
yielded a dollar or less. All the talk in Washington these days,
however, is of cutbacks?even for the hungry."

Of course, the asshole teabagger Republicans don't give a crap about
the poor.

Hey, if the poor don't care why should we? After all they voted Obama
which means they don' care about America.


says the guy who wants america destroyed as long as the rich are
protected....and are white

Destroying the rich, destroys the poor.

But Obama has welfare for pedophiles polygamist FLDS. But then his dad
was polygamist. Which I find disgusting. Obama should be kicking
administration ass on that one.



--
Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted
behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution.

On 09/08/2011 9:35 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 07:18:07 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:00:31 -0600,
wrote:

On 07/08/2011 4:18 PM, wrote:
From an article in the Economist:

"Food stamps, they argue, are far from lavish. Only those with incomes
of 130% of the poverty level or less are eligible for them. The amount
each person receives depends on their income, assets and family size,
but the average benefit is $133 a month and the maximum, for an
individual with no income at all, is $200."

and

"Food stamps also help stimulate the economy more than other forms of
government spending, points out Jim Weill of Food Research and Action
Centre, a charity, since their recipients are so poor that they tend
to spend them immediately. When Moody?s Analytics assessed different
forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective,
increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent.
Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts
yielded a dollar or less. All the talk in Washington these days,
however, is of cutbacks?even for the hungry."

Of course, the asshole teabagger Republicans don't give a crap about
the poor.

Hey, if the poor don't care why should we? After all they voted Obama
which means they don' care about America.


says the guy who wants america destroyed as long as the rich are
protected....and are white

Destroying the rich, destroys the poor.


Huh? So, you believe that the rich should not pay their fair share and
that any tax or imposition on them destroys America. You probably
claim to be a teagagger.

Rich already do pay MORE than their fair share idiot. All you do with
that line is tell us you never got of the bottom rung of society. Yep,
you are a loser.
--
Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted
behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:58:01 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 09/08/2011 9:35 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 07:18:07 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:00:31 -0600,
wrote:

On 07/08/2011 4:18 PM, wrote:
From an article in the Economist:

"Food stamps, they argue, are far from lavish. Only those with incomes
of 130% of the poverty level or less are eligible for them. The amount
each person receives depends on their income, assets and family size,
but the average benefit is $133 a month and the maximum, for an
individual with no income at all, is $200."

and

"Food stamps also help stimulate the economy more than other forms of
government spending, points out Jim Weill of Food Research and Action
Centre, a charity, since their recipients are so poor that they tend
to spend them immediately. When Moody?s Analytics assessed different
forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective,
increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent.
Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts
yielded a dollar or less. All the talk in Washington these days,
however, is of cutbacks?even for the hungry."

Of course, the asshole teabagger Republicans don't give a crap about
the poor.

Hey, if the poor don't care why should we? After all they voted Obama
which means they don' care about America.


says the guy who wants america destroyed as long as the rich are
protected....and are white

Destroying the rich, destroys the poor.


Huh? So, you believe that the rich should not pay their fair share and
that any tax or imposition on them destroys America. You probably
claim to be a teagagger.

Rich already do pay MORE than their fair share idiot. All you do with
that line is tell us you never got of the bottom rung of society. Yep,
you are a loser.

No, they don't. You're too stupid to get it, so you believe paying a
CEO 500x a regular worker who pays a higher percentage in taxes is
just fine. You are the bottom rung.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:56:41 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 09/08/2011 5:18 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:00:31 -0600,
wrote:

On 07/08/2011 4:18 PM, wrote:
From an article in the Economist:

"Food stamps, they argue, are far from lavish. Only those with incomes
of 130% of the poverty level or less are eligible for them. The amount
each person receives depends on their income, assets and family size,
but the average benefit is $133 a month and the maximum, for an
individual with no income at all, is $200."

and

"Food stamps also help stimulate the economy more than other forms of
government spending, points out Jim Weill of Food Research and Action
Centre, a charity, since their recipients are so poor that they tend
to spend them immediately. When Moody?s Analytics assessed different
forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective,
increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent.
Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts
yielded a dollar or less. All the talk in Washington these days,
however, is of cutbacks?even for the hungry."

Of course, the asshole teabagger Republicans don't give a crap about
the poor.

Hey, if the poor don't care why should we? After all they voted Obama
which means they don' care about America.


says the guy who wants america destroyed as long as the rich are
protected....and are white

Destroying the rich, destroys the poor.

But Obama has welfare for pedophiles polygamist FLDS. But then his dad
was polygamist. Which I find disgusting. Obama should be kicking
administration ass on that one.

**** you. You're a racist little man, who's bitter about his station
in life.

On 09/08/2011 10:54 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:58:01 -0600,
wrote:

On 09/08/2011 9:35 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 07:18:07 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:00:31 -0600,
wrote:

On 07/08/2011 4:18 PM, wrote:
From an article in the Economist:

"Food stamps, they argue, are far from lavish. Only those with incomes
of 130% of the poverty level or less are eligible for them. The amount
each person receives depends on their income, assets and family size,
but the average benefit is $133 a month and the maximum, for an
individual with no income at all, is $200."

and

"Food stamps also help stimulate the economy more than other forms of
government spending, points out Jim Weill of Food Research and Action
Centre, a charity, since their recipients are so poor that they tend
to spend them immediately. When Moody?s Analytics assessed different
forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective,
increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent.
Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts
yielded a dollar or less. All the talk in Washington these days,
however, is of cutbacks?even for the hungry."

Of course, the asshole teabagger Republicans don't give a crap about
the poor.

Hey, if the poor don't care why should we? After all they voted Obama
which means they don' care about America.


says the guy who wants america destroyed as long as the rich are
protected....and are white

Destroying the rich, destroys the poor.


Huh? So, you believe that the rich should not pay their fair share and
that any tax or imposition on them destroys America. You probably
claim to be a teagagger.

Rich already do pay MORE than their fair share idiot. All you do with
that line is tell us you never got of the bottom rung of society. Yep,
you are a loser.

No, they don't. You're too stupid to get it, so you believe paying a
CEO 500x a regular worker who pays a higher percentage in taxes is
just fine. You are the bottom rung.

Faact is your full of **** as you never have made minimum wage for 2
weeks....before your fat ass was fired. And that assumes you got hired
once upon a time.
--
Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted
behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution.

On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 07:18:07 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:00:31 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:


Hey, if the poor don't care why should we? After all they voted Obama
which means they don' care about America.


says the guy who wants america destroyed as long as the rich are
protected....and are white

Destroying the rich, destroys the poor.


tell it to king george

didnt work out the way your simplistic, reader's digest view thought,
did it/

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:58:01 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Rich already do pay MORE than their fair share idiot. All you do with
that line is tell us you never got of the bottom rung of society. Yep,
you are a loser.

did their taxes go up 500% in the last 30 years? nope.

they dropped

their INCOMES went up 500% though, while middle class incomes went

nowhere

so your rightwing bull**** is a fable

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:56:41 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:


But Obama has welfare for pedophiles polygamist FLDS. But then his dad
was polygamist. Which I find disgusting. Obama should be kicking
administration ass on that one.

let's see...

jeffs got life.

canuck ignores that because obama is

black

On 09/08/2011 3:01 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:58:01 -0600,
wrote:

Rich already do pay MORE than their fair share idiot. All you do with
that line is tell us you never got of the bottom rung of society. Yep,
you are a loser.

did their taxes go up 500% in the last 30 years? nope.

they dropped

their INCOMES went up 500% though, while middle class incomes went

nowhere

so your rightwing bull**** is a fable

Middle class got raises, they were soaked up in the steady rise of
employment taxes. Check it out.

Fact is the only reason to work for a wage is because you haven't yet
saved enough not to work. And the more the government takes, the less
there is for the people doesn't mater which class your from.

But your just an ignorant dumb****, so I don't expect you to understand.
It is beyond your genetic capabilities.
--
Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted
behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution.