/dev/null Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/27/usda-suggests-food-stamp-parties-games-to-increase-participation/ Like we're not already deep enough in debt, the Government is going to spend money to find more people to suckle from the Gubmint Teet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/27/usda-suggests-food-stamp-parties-games-to-increase-participation/ Like we're not already deep enough in debt, the Government is going to spend money to find more people to suckle from the Gubmint Teet From your link: “Every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates $9.20 in an additional community spending,” the USDA contends in their outreach guidance. “If the national participation rate rose five percentage points, 1.9 million more low-income people would have an additional $1.3 billion in benefits per year to use to purchase healthy food and $2.5 billion total in new economic activity would be generated nationwide.” During debate on the 2012 farm bill earlier this month, Senate Republicans pushed for amendments aimed at reducing the cost and participation in the food stamp program. The Democratically controlled Senate voted down Republican efforts — denying amendments targeting the swelling rolls that were introduced by Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, and others from Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions — arguing they could reduce access to those in need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 "Every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates $9.20 in an additional community spending," the USDA contends in their outreach guidance. "If the national participation rate rose five percentage points, 1.9 million more low-income people would have an additional $1.3 billion in benefits per year to use to purchase healthy food and $2.5 billion total in new economic activity would be generated nationwide." Why don't we put every person in the country on food stamps? Just imagine the economic prosperity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Why don't we put every person in the country on food stamps? Just imagine the economic prosperity! They are just plain nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 It's daily crazy stories like this that has me predicting a monumental blowout for Romney over Obama. I don't believe any poll that has this race close, I think a lot of democrats are lying to the pollsters. There's nothing Obama can do about it short of a miracle economic turnaround which simply isn't going to happen. It's almost as if they think "middle" America doesn't have access to the internet, and their TV's still only get four channels...LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 It's daily crazy stories like this that has me predicting a monumental blowout for Romney over Obama. I don't believe any poll that has this race close, I think a lot of democrats are lying to the pollsters. There's nothing Obama can do about it short of a miracle economic turnaround which simply isn't going to happen. It's almost as if they think "middle" America doesn't have access to the internet, and their TV's still only get four channels...LOL Obama is still going to win. He's got a good lock on Women, Latinos, Blacks, and now it looks like Dems are buttering up the elderly. I think it will be close, but Romney just doesn't have the arsenal to beat out Obama in the Swing States he absolutly has to have to win the 270. It will be interesting. Most of my friends are Democrats, and were charged up by the HC ruling yesterday, many donating money whereas before they were ambivilent. I am not giving one red cent to any campaign, but frankly, I don't think either of the policitcal party choices we have right are the answer to the US long-term challenges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Obama is still going to win. He's got a good lock on Women, Latinos, Blacks, and now it looks like Dems are buttering up the elderly. I think it will be close, but Romney just doesn't have the arsenal to beat out Obama in the Swing States he absolutly has to have to win the 270. Yup. The Dems have better talking points and the populous just gets dumber and dumber so nonsense like "War on Women" carries more weight than whether basic economic policies are working or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Obama is still going to win. He's got a good lock on Women, Latinos, Blacks, and now it looks like Dems are buttering up the elderly. I think it will be close, but Romney just doesn't have the arsenal to beat out Obama in the Swing States he absolutly has to have to win the 270. It will be interesting. Most of my friends are Democrats, and were charged up by the HC ruling yesterday, many donating money whereas before they were ambivilent. I am not giving one red cent to any campaign, but frankly, I don't think either of the policitcal party choices we have right are the answer to the US long-term challenges. Romney is winning among women. Latinos will flock to him once he nominated Rubio. Blacks are getting disillusioned with him and won't be out in force like they were last time. And despite your Dem friends being fired-up after the ruling, they were likely going to vote for him either way anyway. As for the elderly, SNAP parties aren't enough to butter-up seniors who are being faced with $500B in cuts to their Medicare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Obama is still going to win. He's got a good lock on Women, Latinos, Blacks, and now it looks like Dems are buttering up the elderly. I think it will be close, but Romney just doesn't have the arsenal to beat out Obama in the Swing States he absolutly has to have to win the 270. It will be interesting. Most of my friends are Democrats, and were charged up by the HC ruling yesterday, many donating money whereas before they were ambivilent. I am not giving one red cent to any campaign, but frankly, I don't think either of the policitcal party choices we have right are the answer to the US long-term challenges. I think we are in a similar situation as when it was Carter Vs Reagan. In a way it's worse for the Dems because as dumb as Carter was, he wasn't a radical marxist that hates his country like Obama. On the other hand, Romney is no Reagan. The general population is dumber and watered down so that is in the Dems corner as well. So I still think the Rep's win it, but not in a landslide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I think we are in a similar situation as when it was Carter Vs Reagan. In a way it's worse for the Dems because as dumb as Carter was, he wasn't a radical marxist that hates his country like Obama. On the other hand, Romney is no Reagan. The general population is dumber and watered down so that is in the Dems corner as well. So I still think the Rep's win it, but not in a landslide. For me, Romney isn't different enough to draw a clear line in the sand. He is going to get hammered over the next few months about big issues like his signing of the Massachusetts healthcare bill, the one he will not even mention now and disowns. He also doesn't want to talk about his records as Governor or at Bain.... so the question will be, will running on Obama record on jobs and the economy work? How are Swing States doing economically, are any that Obama won in 2008 able to be flipped? Will the Dems pose him as this wishy washy silver spooner who is desperate to be PRESIDENT at all costs? Democrats will have the edge on National Security and Healthcare at this point, for Romney he better hope the economcy does not improve significantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I think we are in a similar situation as when it was Carter Vs Reagan. In a way it's worse for the Dems because as dumb as Carter was, he wasn't a radical marxist that hates his country like Obama. On the other hand, Romney is no Reagan. The general population is dumber and watered down so that is in the Dems corner as well. So I still think the Rep's win it, but not in a landslide. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) Obama is still going to win. He's got a good lock on Women, Latinos, Blacks, and now it looks like Dems are buttering up the elderly. I think it will be close, but Romney just doesn't have the arsenal to beat out Obama in the Swing States he absolutly has to have to win the 270. It will be interesting. Most of my friends are Democrats, and were charged up by the HC ruling yesterday, many donating money whereas before they were ambivilent. I am not giving one red cent to any campaign, but frankly, I don't think either of the policitcal party choices we have right are the answer to the US long-term challenges. Perhaps not, but, only an unmitigated moron would consider this: "Every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates $9.20 in an additional community spending," the USDA contends in their outreach guidance. "If the national participation rate rose five percentage points, 1.9 million more low-income people would have an additional $1.3 billion in benefits per year to use to purchase healthy food and $2.5 billion total in new economic activity would be generated nationwide." to be anything other than the completely wrong answer, short or long term. Perhaps we should just put everyone on food stamps then? Christ that would create a demand boom, wouldn't it? Unmitigated morons. Edit: and no, this is not "Keynesian Stimulus". Not even Paulfuscate Krugman would try to sell this stupidity. If we have to choose between this....and ANYTHING, for a long/short term solution? Anything is better. This is just plain idiocy. Idiocy is not an "opinion", and stupidity is a choice. Edited June 29, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Will the Dems pose him as this wishy washy silver spooner who is desperate to be PRESIDENT at all costs? You're talking about Obama right?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 You're talking about Obama right?? They're both desperate to be President ... which is the problem. What the country needs is someone who doesn't give two chits about being President. Someone who is willing do what's right rather than what's politically in their best interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 They're both desperate to be President ... My point exactly. He used a line to disparage Romney that can as easily been used on Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 They're both desperate to be President ... which is the problem. What the country needs is someone who doesn't give two chits about being President. Someone who is willing do what's right rather than what's politically in their best interests. I suppose it depends upon why a person is desperate to be president. If it's for one's own self gratification or if they really feel they can make a difference is the key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) For me, Romney isn't different enough to draw a clear line in the sand. He is going to get hammered over the next few months about big issues like his signing of the Massachusetts healthcare bill, the one he will not even mention now and disowns. He also doesn't want to talk about his records as Governor or at Bain.... so the question will be, will running on Obama record on jobs and the economy work? How are Swing States doing economically, are any that Obama won in 2008 able to be flipped? Will the Dems pose him as this wishy washy silver spooner who is desperate to be PRESIDENT at all costs? Democrats will have the edge on National Security and Healthcare at this point, for Romney he better hope the economcy does not improve significantly. Impossible with this guy in the White house. Leftist leaders that seek to expand a all controlling centralized government aren't conducive to economic recoveries. How can the dems have advantage in security while Barry is stripping us of our nukes and gutting the military? And how secure is it when every covert thing we do is exploited by this prez to help him get elected? And government run healthcare is attractive only to the parasites of the country. Edited June 29, 2012 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 29, 2012 Author Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) It will be interesting. Most of my friends are Democrats, and were charged up by the HC ruling yesterday, many donating money whereas before they were ambivilent. Meanwhile most of my friends are Libertarians and Republicans who weren't too thrilled with Romeny. I have a few friends who were mad as hell when Rand Paul endorsed Romeny and saw it as a sell out. I know a couple other Tea Partiers who had lost the partying spirit. Tea Partiers are ready to get the band back together and the Rand Paul sellout haters are ready to forgive and forget and start backing Romney. I know a few other apolitical types who are tilting more towards Romney now Edited June 29, 2012 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 They're both desperate to be President ... which is the problem. What the country needs is someone who doesn't give two chits about being President. Someone who is willing do what's right rather than what's politically in their best interests. I've always said that anyone who actually wants that job is fundamentally unqualified to hold it. May as well elect me. I don't want the job, I couldn't give two ***** about either party, and I'd expect to be a one-term president on the premise that I'd rather work to do my job than keep my job - I'd rather make the hard, unpopular choices than the soft, popular, fluffy ones. I'd also drive this country into a depression, after I vetoed every single budget put in front of me that ran a deficit and dared Congress to override my veto. But long-term, the country would be better for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I know a few other apolitical types who are tilting more towards Romney now The mistake liberals are making these days is thinking that just because some polls show kids and blacks and Hispanics going for Obama, this somehow means they'll all show up. They seem to regularly forget how unbelievably bad this economy is for these groups. Their unemployment rates are horrible. Consider this: the unemployment rate is 13.6% for blacks and 11% for Hispanics and 24.6% for teenagers. If our President was white white instead of white black, they'd complain he was doing it to keep the minorities down. These groups may like Obama, but they still need to get to the polls to make it really count, and their worlds suck so badly right now I think it's a stretch to suggest they will do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts