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.

On 7-Aug-2011, wrote:

"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.

People with the I.Q. of a 3 day old carp "think" your defunct country
consists of democrats and republicans, and never miss an opportunity to
prove that fact.

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.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:41:14 GMT, "Haywood Jablomie"
wrote:


On 7-Aug-2011, wrote:

"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.

People with the I.Q. of a 3 day old carp "think" your defunct country
consists of democrats and republicans, and never miss an opportunity to
prove that fact.

This "defunct" country of ours is by far the best one on the planet.
Feel free to not live here.

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!

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

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.

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...

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?

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.