About Us

Canuck57[_9_]

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.

--
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.

[email protected]

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.

Hey, if you're stupid and you don't mind proving it on a daily basis,
why should I disagree!

wf3h[_2_]

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

Canuck57[_9_]

On 08/08/2011 7:10 PM, wf3h wrote:
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

Not at all, just gloating on my call of fleabagger stupidity,
anticipating it to a tee is going to make me money.
--
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.

[email protected]

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 20:39:03 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/08/2011 7:10 PM, wf3h wrote:
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

Not at all, just gloating on my call of fleabagger stupidity,
anticipating it to a tee is going to make me money.

As he said, the guy who wants America destroyed...

wf3h[_2_]

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 20:39:03 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/08/2011 7:10 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:00:31 -0600,
wrote:

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

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

Not at all, just gloating on my call of fleabagger stupidity,
anticipating it to a tee is going to make me money.

let's see....canuck lives in the land of socialized medicine and high
union membership while condeming

socialized medicine and high union membership

aint being right wing wunnerful?

BAR[_2_]

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.

[email protected]

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.

Canuck57[_9_]

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.

[email protected]

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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Spending - a visual.	John Again	General	4	August 2nd 09 12:17 PM
Spending those Taxpayer Dollars	Boater	General	45	October 25th 08 01:57 PM
Obama's spending	redbard	ASA	6	September 9th 08 11:09 PM
Spending that Economy Booster	hk	General	137	January 28th 08 03:35 PM

Menu

About Us