Scott Walker, worst governor in the U.S., kicks 15,000 Wisconsinites off of food stamps.

You are ignorant. Shove up your ass, Alan.

Donut

exthrower wrote:

Americans on welfare/food stamps are the most obese people on the Planet.....Anyone hungry in this country is incredibly stupid..Every city has a food kitchen and shelter...and churches who will feed you....What more can society do, take you by the hand and lead you to the Welfare office?

"I wonder how much further I can put my head up my ass", he thought, as he typed from his comfy house, while eating a double bacon cheeseburger and thinking about how much better he is than minorities....

8fsd89 wrote:

http://www.wisn.com/news/report-15k-recipients-lose-food-stamps-under-wisconsin-law/36713718

"Nearly 15,000 Wisconsin residents lost access to food stamps in the first three months under a new law that requires some recipients to seek jobs, government data shows."

I wasn't a fan of Walker's foreign policy positions when he was a POTUS candidate, but admire his stance on food stamps, union thugs, and entitlement program BS..

Runningart2004 wrote:

What if you can't read? Barely have an 8th grade education at best?

There's a small % of the population that is so uneducated and so dependent upon the system that they have no idea how to do things themselves.

How do we fix this problem?

Alan

Alan the Macho Man is back. How is the war for you in Syria?

Stagger Lee wrote:

messi wrote:

Is penalizing those without kids. Knew he would not kick off those with kids. Hypocritical.

Children are innocent. It isn't their fault they have deadbeat parents. What's hypocritical about that? Cutting off the gravy train and then removing the children would be an even better move.

Nothing I said is wrong or misleading. The US welfare system has always REWARDED those with kids.....it's the main reasons these slugs have kids.

It is like the divorced mom incurring her own benefit from child support. 100% of the child support isn't going to the kids; some is going her way.

Runningart2004 wrote:

What if you can't read? Barely have an 8th grade education at best?

There's a small % of the population that is so uneducated and so dependent upon the system that they have no idea how to do things themselves.

How do we fix this problem?

Alan

We could buy them a plane ticket to one of the more progressive European nations. We'd save more in the first year than the cost of a one way ticket, and surely the model in play in the Nordic countries can handle the people that our American system can't...

Runningart2004 wrote:

What if you can't read? Barely have an 8th grade education at best?

There's a small % of the population that is so uneducated and so dependent upon the system that they have no idea how to do things themselves.

How do we fix this problem?

Alan

Parents need to read to their children at a young age. From infancy until they can read on their own. Then, the kids need to read every day.

"We" cannot fix the problem, but "we" can educate people so the problem doesn't get worse.

Once you grow up and get a job you will change your mind. Until then enjoy your childhood.

Donut Know wrote:

Idunnodawg wrote:

Wonder why that would be?

It keeps them from having to pay employee benefits. It's a business practice fully approved by people like Walker.

Obamacare makes it too expensive to employ these people full time.

messi wrote:

Stagger Lee wrote:

Children are innocent. It isn't their fault they have deadbeat parents. What's hypocritical about that? Cutting off the gravy train and then removing the children would be an even better move.

Nothing I said is wrong or misleading. The US welfare system has always REWARDED those with kids.....it's the main reasons these slugs have kids.

It is like the divorced mom incurring her own benefit from child support. 100% of the child support isn't going to the kids; some is going her way.

From the BLS:

"And while the stereotype of the “welfare queen” is a woman who has more children to increase the benefits she gets from government programs, families who are enrolled look similar to those who aren’t. “Average family size was the same (3.7 persons), whether or not a family received assistance,” the report notes."

thejeff wrote:

Donut Know wrote:

It keeps them from having to pay employee benefits. It's a business practice fully approved by people like Walker.

Obamacare makes it too expensive to employ these people full time.

Ummm, the sub 20 hour week has been around much longer than Obamacare. It is indeed a strategy business owners use, and most of them using the technique are conservatives.

messi wrote:

Stagger Lee wrote:

Children are innocent. It isn't their fault they have deadbeat parents. What's hypocritical about that? Cutting off the gravy train and then removing the children would be an even better move.

Nothing I said is wrong or misleading. The US welfare system has always REWARDED those with kids.....it's the main reasons these slugs have kids.

It is like the divorced mom incurring her own benefit from child support. 100% of the child support isn't going to the kids; some is going her way.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying here. Your sentence structure in the first post threw me off. Are you saying Walker is being hypocritical? Just as some of child support is going to the parent, some of the welfare is going to the children. There are certainly moral issues with taking that away. Plus, there is no way Walker has the political capital to take away benefits from people with children.

Long Before wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Obamacare makes it too expensive to employ these people full time.

Ummm, the sub 20 hour week has been around much longer than Obamacare. It is indeed a strategy business owners use, and most of them using the technique are conservatives.

Change to "programs such as Obamacare". Problem solved.

Do you think business would rather employ a few people that he can trust and has a good relationship with full time? Or would he rather cast a large net hoping to snag a few reliable part-timers, hoping that they have reliable transportation to work, etc?

These government regulations HURT the proletariat.

Lib Rules wrote:

Actually, places like McD's & Walmart cost taxpayers more. The companies get more from the government than they put in while giving their employees a wage that is not livable thus forcing those employees to also go to the government to get food stamps anyway.

Lol tell me you're joking. Those companies pay their employees enough to live on. They also are not preventing their employees from getting an additional job or income. No one is being forced to get on food stamps and those companies aren't costing taxpayers more.

Weeeigh wrote:

Lib Rules wrote:

Actually, places like McD's & Walmart cost taxpayers more. The companies get more from the government than they put in while giving their employees a wage that is not livable thus forcing those employees to also go to the government to get food stamps anyway.

Lol tell me you're joking. Those companies pay their employees enough to live on. They also are not preventing their employees from getting an additional job or income. No one is being forced to get on food stamps and those companies aren't costing taxpayers more.

Even if they DON'T pay people enough to live on, so what? Those jobs were intended for part-timers to begin with. If you want a full time job, get a full time education.