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 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 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 20:43:32 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:00:08 -0400, wf3h wrote:

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/

Huh?

The people who organized the American revolution were rich men who
didn't want to pay taxes and did not have a problem with slaves,
indentured servants and overthrowing the government.

The tea party is pretty tame in comparison

john paulson made 3.7 BILLION trading CDO's as goldman sachs went into
the toilet

how'd that work out for your reader's digest view of the rich?

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 20:43:32 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:00:08 -0400, wf3h wrote:

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/

Huh?

The people who organized the American revolution were rich men who
didn't want to pay taxes and did not have a problem with slaves,
indentured servants and overthrowing the government.

The tea party is pretty tame in comparison

Firstly, many of the American rev. DID have a problem with slaves.

But, yes, by comparison they're pretty tame. The difference of course
is that the teagaggers are mostly middle class, and were hoodwinked by
the very rich and connected to get THEIR taxes lowered. They tend to
have a poor understand of what gov't does, think it's evil, right up
until they're affected. Given the made up crisis of the debt ceiling,
the S&P downgrade, the market drop, they'll find out shortly that
they're the ones most affected.