A classic!
The clueless statist liberal brings up the Soviet Union's  government control of the food supply and resulting starvation of it's own people under to support the position of GOVERNMENT planning preventing starvation.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan:

Government planning and control of the food supply is not the solution to starvation, Government planning and control of the food supply is the cause of starvation !!

In response to tacobreath's comment:

"President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief."

There aren't any accurate numbers prior to 1932, but even 110 deaths in NYC extrapolates to 4,000 nation-wide, and that is starvation only - there would be many more that are hunger-related or mal-nutrition related leading to disease.  And that was two years after the federal involvement began.

There's a report by a Russian researcher that suggests the number of hunger-related deaths was 7 million ... http://www.infowars.com/researcher-famine-killed-7-million-in-us-during-great-depression/

I don't believe it was that high, and I'm not suggesting ditching SNAP would throw us into a great depression - I'm just explaining why my count of starving Americans before federal government intervention is vague, but high.

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Hres' my summary of this:

Liberals havenot produced ONE fact to support their point of view.  For them, it is an emotional argument:  people are poor, they must need food, government should provide it.

Conservatives point out food is cheap and plentiful. 

SNAP needs to go away, it is not needed.  It is a buggy whip from the 30's, and does not meet a current actual need.

Your summary is deeply flawed.  

Fact 1: before federal government intervention, countless died of starvation

Fact 2: inches from the US border, there is no government intervention to prevent starvation, and thousands of Mexicans die each year

Fact 3: The average per-capita food-stamp outlay is $30/week - the exact amount Skeeter professes to subsist on

Fact 4: $30 > $0

Fact 5: Some poor people have children

What exactly were your facts again?   Cheap and plentiful are relative terms.

  Conme on.  Just admit you have lost the argument.So your facts are:

   There used to be starvation.

   Mexico has starvation.

   Average food stamp outlay is $30.

   Poor people have children.

So, tell me:  how does this make the argument we need food stamps? Particularly in a country where food is cheap and plentifuly?  Is your argument really that, except for Government, these people woudl starve?  Really?  That's not only weak, but is is morally bankrupt.  You see a hungry person, YOU feed them.

And, the slap or smear at my eating responsibly?  weakens you argument further.  This is not about me, but you know that.

you are simply making an emotional argument about a problem that does not exist, save for the one government has created by providing food stamps.

And you seal your argument with that well trodden "it's for the children".  If these parents can't feed their children in a country where food is plentiful and cheap, their problem runs much deeper than food, and, if government is really driving this, we need to consider taking children away from parents that can't or won't do what is necessary to feed their children, for the good of the children.  That makes sense, doesn't it?.  I mean, you want to do this for the children, right?

Where is the support for your argument?  My facts show that many Americans died of starvation before these programs were in place.  Your counter was that was too long ago to count, and that we have so much food in America that it would surely find its way to peoples mouths in depressed areas of the country.  That's not a fact - that's a hunch, but I countered it anyway - if we have that much food in the country, why doesn't it find it's way an inch across the border?

I wasn't slapping or smearing you, and the fact that you took it that way leads me to believe you're not the objective one in our exchange.  I was expressing skepticism to your dollar count, which you were using to support really the only tenet of your argument - that food is so cheap that anybody could find enough to survive.  Your dollar count, by the way, has already nearly doubled in subsequent posts.

My point on children is that whatever amount of money you decide is the bare minimum it takes for a person to feed himself, every child is a multiplier.  So even at $30/week, that's $600/month for a family of five.  That's not necessarily found in the couch cushions.

So, you argument is that we need the program now because maybe a few people were starving 80  years ago?  Where's your proof thatit is needed now? I guess by that argument we still need to be at war with Germany. After all, that was needed 80 years ago as well.

lot's has changed in the last 80 years in terms of food.  We need to celebrate that capitalism largely erriadicated hunger over the past 80 years.  you do see that the free market has made food plentiful and cheap? You are not going to deny that as well, are you?

now, unfortunately, we are unringing that bell under Obama, and yes, under Bush as well.

you don't need me to show you food is cheap, stop by a super market, and not Whole Foods.

you fail to see the obvious flaw in your argument: if people are at risk of starving, why the focus on obesity?  Particularly amongst the poor?

Get rid of the food stamp program. It is nothing more than a liberal offering at their satanic altar of government control.

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

A classic!
The clueless statist liberal brings up the Soviet Union's  government control of the food supply and resulting starvation of it's own people under to support the position of GOVERNMENT planning preventing starvation.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan:

Government planning and control of the food supply is not the solution to starvation, Government planning and control of the food supply is the cause of starvation !!

Government causes starvation?  That's like saying trees cause pollution...

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

"President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief."

There aren't any accurate numbers prior to 1932, but even 110 deaths in NYC extrapolates to 4,000 nation-wide, and that is starvation only - there would be many more that are hunger-related or mal-nutrition related leading to disease.  And that was two years after the federal involvement began.

There's a report by a Russian researcher that suggests the number of hunger-related deaths was 7 million ... http://www.infowars.com/researcher-famine-killed-7-million-in-us-during-great-depression/

I don't believe it was that high, and I'm not suggesting ditching SNAP would throw us into a great depression - I'm just explaining why my count of starving Americans before federal government intervention is vague, but high.

So, are you saying that if we end the food stamp program TODAY, there would be thirty million dead Americans in a week?

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Hres' my summary of this:

Liberals havenot produced ONE fact to support their point of view.  For them, it is an emotional argument:  people are poor, they must need food, government should provide it.

Conservatives point out food is cheap and plentiful. 

SNAP needs to go away, it is not needed.  It is a buggy whip from the 30's, and does not meet a current actual need.

Your summary is deeply flawed.  

Fact 1: before federal government intervention, countless died of starvation

Fact 2: inches from the US border, there is no government intervention to prevent starvation, and thousands of Mexicans die each year

Fact 3: The average per-capita food-stamp outlay is $30/week - the exact amount Skeeter professes to subsist on

Fact 4: $30 > $0

Fact 5: Some poor people have children

What exactly were your facts again?   Cheap and plentiful are relative terms.

  Conme on.  Just admit you have lost the argument.So your facts are:

   There used to be starvation.

   Mexico has starvation.

   Average food stamp outlay is $30.

   Poor people have children.

So, tell me:  how does this make the argument we need food stamps? Particularly in a country where food is cheap and plentifuly?  Is your argument really that, except for Government, these people woudl starve?  Really?  That's not only weak, but is is morally bankrupt.  You see a hungry person, YOU feed them.

And, the slap or smear at my eating responsibly?  weakens you argument further.  This is not about me, but you know that.

you are simply making an emotional argument about a problem that does not exist, save for the one government has created by providing food stamps.

And you seal your argument with that well trodden "it's for the children".  If these parents can't feed their children in a country where food is plentiful and cheap, their problem runs much deeper than food, and, if government is really driving this, we need to consider taking children away from parents that can't or won't do what is necessary to feed their children, for the good of the children.  That makes sense, doesn't it?.  I mean, you want to do this for the children, right?

Where is the support for your argument?  My facts show that many Americans died of starvation before these programs were in place.  Your counter was that was too long ago to count, and that we have so much food in America that it would surely find its way to peoples mouths in depressed areas of the country.  That's not a fact - that's a hunch, but I countered it anyway - if we have that much food in the country, why doesn't it find it's way an inch across the border?

I wasn't slapping or smearing you, and the fact that you took it that way leads me to believe you're not the objective one in our exchange.  I was expressing skepticism to your dollar count, which you were using to support really the only tenet of your argument - that food is so cheap that anybody could find enough to survive.  Your dollar count, by the way, has already nearly doubled in subsequent posts.

My point on children is that whatever amount of money you decide is the bare minimum it takes for a person to feed himself, every child is a multiplier.  So even at $30/week, that's $600/month for a family of five.  That's not necessarily found in the couch cushions.

So, you argument is that we need the program now because maybe a few people were starving 80  years ago?  Where's your proof thatit is needed now? I guess by that argument we still need to be at war with Germany. After all, that was needed 80 years ago as well.

lot's has changed in the last 80 years in terms of food.  We need to celebrate that capitalism largely erriadicated hunger over the past 80 years.  you do see that the free market has made food plentiful and cheap? You are not going to deny that as well, are you?

now, unfortunately, we are unringing that bell under Obama, and yes, under Bush as well.

you don't need me to show you food is cheap, stop by a super market, and not Whole Foods.

you fail to see the obvious flaw in your argument: if people are at risk of starving, why the focus on obesity?  Particularly amongst the poor?

Get rid of the food stamp program. It is nothing more than a liberal offering at their satanic altar of government control.

Maybe a few people were starving in 1931?  You want me to concede the argument - you pretty much just threw in the towel.  But let's keep going ...

So you've moved off the idea that food assistance was never needed in this country - that it was just a made up solution to a problem that doesn't exist.  So now you believe the problem no longer exists.

Your analogy is flawed - we didn't help feed one family, or one city or state - and the program evolved to meet new and different needs over the years.  So here's the analogy you're searching for:  Germany hasn't been a threat for 80 years, so we should disband our military.  Yeah, there may be some other threats out there, but it's nothing like the days of Hitler.  And there are plenty of guns in the world - if somebody presents a global threat, somebody else will come across this person or country or terror cell, and take care of it with no cost to the US government.  

Do I credit capitalism for making food affordable?  Maybe some foods.  I'm under no delusions that in a time of crisis, capitalism would drive food prices up - it's supply and demand, right? That's why twinkies are selling for $500 on ebay.  I think the corn lobby has had more to do with keeping chips, soda and sweets low.  And I think farm bills get some credit for keeping wheat, grain and produce low. 

As for obesity - these kids aren't eating healthy foods.  Is it their fault?  Yeah, partially. Are the parents to blame?  Yeah, more so than the kids IMO.  But they also don't have access to some of the things we take for granted - a lot of them can't drink the water coming out of their taps, and soda is cheaper than water at the market.  A lot of depressed areas of the country don't have supermarkets, so they do their shopping at mini marts and liquor stores.  Try spending your $60 next week at gas stations, and see how healthy you feel. 

I'll happily concede that many of the adults taking food stamps are not as hard working, or smart or educated or resourceful or as disciplined or as valuable to society as you are.  I still don't want them starving, or even suffering.  And I think I'm in the majority here.

I guess I've thrown in the towel because you say I did? What a jerk.

the program is not needed. Period. Going back to the 30's to try to support the program today is the stupidest argument I have ever heard.

you can't face the truth, that the problem I this country is obesity, not starvation, and that the only thing food stamps accomplishes is frees up money for big screen tv's.

if you are so concerned with parents that don't feed their children propery, then you should be screaming to put those parents in jail for child abuse.

but, you don't, because your argument is not about feeding people who can't afford it. 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Hres' my summary of this:

Liberals havenot produced ONE fact to support their point of view.  For them, it is an emotional argument:  people are poor, they must need food, government should provide it.

Conservatives point out food is cheap and plentiful. 

SNAP needs to go away, it is not needed.  It is a buggy whip from the 30's, and does not meet a current actual need.

Your summary is deeply flawed.  

Fact 1: before federal government intervention, countless died of starvation

Fact 2: inches from the US border, there is no government intervention to prevent starvation, and thousands of Mexicans die each year

Fact 3: The average per-capita food-stamp outlay is $30/week - the exact amount Skeeter professes to subsist on

Fact 4: $30 > $0

Fact 5: Some poor people have children

What exactly were your facts again?   Cheap and plentiful are relative terms.

  Conme on.  Just admit you have lost the argument.So your facts are:

   There used to be starvation.

   Mexico has starvation.

   Average food stamp outlay is $30.

   Poor people have children.

So, tell me:  how does this make the argument we need food stamps? Particularly in a country where food is cheap and plentifuly?  Is your argument really that, except for Government, these people woudl starve?  Really?  That's not only weak, but is is morally bankrupt.  You see a hungry person, YOU feed them.

And, the slap or smear at my eating responsibly?  weakens you argument further.  This is not about me, but you know that.

you are simply making an emotional argument about a problem that does not exist, save for the one government has created by providing food stamps.

And you seal your argument with that well trodden "it's for the children".  If these parents can't feed their children in a country where food is plentiful and cheap, their problem runs much deeper than food, and, if government is really driving this, we need to consider taking children away from parents that can't or won't do what is necessary to feed their children, for the good of the children.  That makes sense, doesn't it?.  I mean, you want to do this for the children, right?

Where is the support for your argument?  My facts show that many Americans died of starvation before these programs were in place.  Your counter was that was too long ago to count, and that we have so much food in America that it would surely find its way to peoples mouths in depressed areas of the country.  That's not a fact - that's a hunch, but I countered it anyway - if we have that much food in the country, why doesn't it find it's way an inch across the border?

I wasn't slapping or smearing you, and the fact that you took it that way leads me to believe you're not the objective one in our exchange.  I was expressing skepticism to your dollar count, which you were using to support really the only tenet of your argument - that food is so cheap that anybody could find enough to survive.  Your dollar count, by the way, has already nearly doubled in subsequent posts.

My point on children is that whatever amount of money you decide is the bare minimum it takes for a person to feed himself, every child is a multiplier.  So even at $30/week, that's $600/month for a family of five.  That's not necessarily found in the couch cushions.

So, you argument is that we need the program now because maybe a few people were starving 80  years ago?  Where's your proof thatit is needed now? I guess by that argument we still need to be at war with Germany. After all, that was needed 80 years ago as well.

lot's has changed in the last 80 years in terms of food.  We need to celebrate that capitalism largely erriadicated hunger over the past 80 years.  you do see that the free market has made food plentiful and cheap? You are not going to deny that as well, are you?

now, unfortunately, we are unringing that bell under Obama, and yes, under Bush as well.

you don't need me to show you food is cheap, stop by a super market, and not Whole Foods.

you fail to see the obvious flaw in your argument: if people are at risk of starving, why the focus on obesity?  Particularly amongst the poor?

Get rid of the food stamp program. It is nothing more than a liberal offering at their satanic altar of government control.

Maybe a few people were starving in 1931?  You want me to concede the argument - you pretty much just threw in the towel.  But let's keep going ...

So you've moved off the idea that food assistance was never needed in this country - that it was just a made up solution to a problem that doesn't exist.  So now you believe the problem no longer exists.

Your analogy is flawed - we didn't help feed one family, or one city or state - and the program evolved to meet new and different needs over the years.  So here's the analogy you're searching for:  Germany hasn't been a threat for 80 years, so we should disband our military.  Yeah, there may be some other threats out there, but it's nothing like the days of Hitler.  And there are plenty of guns in the world - if somebody presents a global threat, somebody else will come across this person or country or terror cell, and take care of it with no cost to the US government.  

Do I credit capitalism for making food affordable?  Maybe some foods.  I'm under no delusions that in a time of crisis, capitalism would drive food prices up - it's supply and demand, right? That's why twinkies are selling for $500 on ebay.  I think the corn lobby has had more to do with keeping chips, soda and sweets low.  And I think farm bills get some credit for keeping wheat, grain and produce low. 

As for obesity - these kids aren't eating healthy foods.  Is it their fault?  Yeah, partially. Are the parents to blame?  Yeah, more so than the kids IMO.  But they also don't have access to some of the things we take for granted - a lot of them can't drink the water coming out of their taps, and soda is cheaper than water at the market.  A lot of depressed areas of the country don't have supermarkets, so they do their shopping at mini marts and liquor stores.  Try spending your $60 next week at gas stations, and see how healthy you feel. 

I'll happily concede that many of the adults taking food stamps are not as hard working, or smart or educated or resourceful or as disciplined or as valuable to society as you are.  I still don't want them starving, or even suffering.  And I think I'm in the majority here.

I guess I've thrown in the towel because you say I did? What a jerk.

the program is not needed. Period. Going back to the 30's to try to support the program today is the stupidest argument I have ever heard.

you can't face the truth, that the problem I this country is obesity, not starvation, and that the only thing food stamps accomplishes is frees up money for big screen tv's.

if you are so concerned with parents that don't feed their children propery, then you should be screaming to put those parents in jail for child abuse.

but, you don't, because your argument is not about feeding people who can't afford it. 

Well, at least you've proven you're emotionally detached about all this.

Happy St. Patty's day - have a Guiness for me!  That will leave you with $24 for the rest of the week :)

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

A classic!
The clueless statist liberal brings up the Soviet Union's  government control of the food supply and resulting starvation of it's own people under to support the position of GOVERNMENT planning preventing starvation.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan:

Government planning and control of the food supply is not the solution to starvation, Government planning and control of the food supply is the cause of starvation !!

Government causes starvation?  That's like saying trees cause pollution...

trees expel co2. The Obama EPA has determined hat co2 is a pollutant.

so much for your tree analogy.

When government interferes with the private, capitalist market, it causes distortions.  It is possible that this distortion could lead to the unintended consequence of starvation.

after all, it did in the USSR.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

A classic!
The clueless statist liberal brings up the Soviet Union's  government control of the food supply and resulting starvation of it's own people under to support the position of GOVERNMENT planning preventing starvation.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan:

Government planning and control of the food supply is not the solution to starvation, Government planning and control of the food supply is the cause of starvation !!

Government causes starvation?  That's like saying trees cause pollution...

trees expel co2. The Obama EPA has determined hat co2 is a pollutant.

so much for your tree analogy.

When government interferes with the private, capitalist market, it causes distortions.  It is possible that this distortion could lead to the unintended consequence of starvation.

after all, it did in the USSR.

"trees expel co2"

You might want to read up a little more on that. While it's true the do give off co2 at night (and during decomposition), they sequester more co2 than they give off.

And it's not the "Obama" EPA that concluded co2 is a pollutant.

In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

A classic!
The clueless statist liberal brings up the Soviet Union's  government control of the food supply and resulting starvation of it's own people under to support the position of GOVERNMENT planning preventing starvation.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan:

Government planning and control of the food supply is not the solution to starvation, Government planning and control of the food supply is the cause of starvation !!

Government causes starvation?  That's like saying trees cause pollution...

trees expel co2. The Obama EPA has determined hat co2 is a pollutant.

so much for your tree analogy.

When government interferes with the private, capitalist market, it causes distortions.  It is possible that this distortion could lead to the unintended consequence of starvation.

after all, it did in the USSR.

"trees expel co2"

You might want to read up a little more on that. While it's true the do give off co2 at night (and during decomposition), they sequester more co2 than they give off.

And it's not the "Obama" EPA that concluded co2 is a pollutant.

Oh, I get it. I think I have cracked the code. the throw away point is the only one where the left have some facts on their side.

the rest of it, the left is clueless.

trees expel co2. The Obama EPA has determined hat co2 is a pollutant.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

trees expel co2. The Obama EPA has determined hat co2 is a pollutant.

Moron.  

They also emit oxygen, i.e., that stuff humans need in order to live, and in much, much greater amounts.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

trees expel co2. The Obama EPA has determined hat co2 is a pollutant.

Moron.  

They also emit oxygen, i.e., that stuff humans need in order to live, and in much, much greater amounts.

See? The. Throwaway point becomes the main point for the hapless liberals.

so, there'll me.  If we end food stamps today, will there be 48 million dead Americans late next week?

or, is there some other factor in play, like servitude to the government?

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

trees expel co2. The Obama EPA has determined hat co2 is a pollutant.

Moron.  

They also emit oxygen, i.e., that stuff humans need in order to live, and in much, much greater amounts.

See? The. Throwaway point becomes the main point for the hapless liberals.

so, there'll me.  If we end food stamps today, will there be 48 million dead Americans late next week?

or, is there some other factor in play, like servitude to the government?

Why include a "throw away point" only to complain when we call you out on its erroneous nature? What was your "point" with its inclusion?

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

trees expel co2. The Obama EPA has determined hat co2 is a pollutant.

Moron.  

They also emit oxygen, i.e., that stuff humans need in order to live, and in much, much greater amounts.

See? The. Throwaway point becomes the main point for the hapless liberals.

so, there'll me.  If we end food stamps today, will there be 48 million dead Americans late next week?

or, is there some other factor in play, like servitude to the government?

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

trees expel co2. The Obama EPA has determined hat co2 is a pollutant.

Moron.  

They also emit oxygen, i.e., that stuff humans need in order to live, and in much, much greater amounts.

See? The. Throwaway point becomes the main point for the hapless liberals.

so, there'll me.  If we end food stamps today, will there be 48 million dead Americans late next week?

or, is there some other factor in play, like servitude to the government?

Skeeter, you haven't shown any facts.  Only hunches and back-pedaling.

SKEETER: Food stamps pretend to solve a problem that didn't exist (HUNCH PROVEN FALSE)

REALITY: Food stamps can be traced back to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 which bought surpluses from farms and distributed them to the needy (FACT)

SKEETER: Well, that was a long time ago, and people don't need help any more (HUNCH) because food finds its way to people in need (HUNCH PROVEN FALSE)

REALITY: Food doesn't find it's way an inch across the border, where thousands of Mexicans die of hunger every year (FACT)

SKEETER: Well, that's Mexico, and nothing like that could ever happen again in America (HUNCH).   Food is too cheap and plentiful (SUBJECTIVE OPINION).

REALITY: What you think is cheap and plentiful depends on your financial situation (OBJECTIVE STATEMENT)

SKEETER:  My wife and I eat on $60 week.  (EXAGGERATION)

REALITY: Really?

SKEETER: OK, maybe $80.  (BACKPEDALING)

REALITY: Really?

SKEETER: OK, it's more like $110 (BACKPEDALING)

REALITY: OK, so a responsible person needs $55/week to eat.  So a family of five needs $275 / week or $1100 / month? (MATH)

SKEETER: [crickets]

REALITY: The average outlay for food-stamps is $30/week (FACT)

SKEETER: Jerk! (EMOTIONAL REACTION)

REALITY: OK, Man - good luck 

SKEETER: Well, I guess you libs just can't face facts.

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to tacobreath's comment:

"President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief."

There aren't any accurate numbers prior to 1932, but even 110 deaths in NYC extrapolates to 4,000 nation-wide, and that is starvation only - there would be many more that are hunger-related or mal-nutrition related leading to disease.  And that was two years after the federal involvement began.

There's a report by a Russian researcher that suggests the number of hunger-related deaths was 7 million ... http://www.infowars.com/researcher-famine-killed-7-million-in-us-during-great-depression/

I don't believe it was that high, and I'm not suggesting ditching SNAP would throw us into a great depression - I'm just explaining why my count of starving Americans before federal government intervention is vague, but high.

20 deaths in NY City.  The 110 is nation wide.  Re-read the Hoover quote. 

110 total US in 1934.  That`s hardly "thousands" and no where near "millions".  Again, ONE death is too many, I think we could all agree.  The problem with EBT, SNAP, etc, is abuse.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

trees expel co2. The Obama EPA has determined hat co2 is a pollutant.

Moron.  

They also emit oxygen, i.e., that stuff humans need in order to live, and in much, much greater amounts.

See? The. Throwaway point becomes the main point for the hapless liberals.

so, there'll me.  If we end food stamps today, will there be 48 million dead Americans late next week?

or, is there some other factor in play, like servitude to the government?

Skeeter, you haven't shown any facts.  Only hunches and back-pedaling.

SKEETER: Food stamps pretend to solve a problem that didn't exist (HUNCH PROVEN FALSE)

REALITY: Food stamps can be traced back to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 which bought surpluses from farms and distributed them to the needy (FACT)

SKEETER: Well, that was a long time ago, and people don't need help any more (HUNCH) because food finds its way to people in need (HUNCH PROVEN FALSE)

REALITY: Food doesn't find it's way an inch across the border, where thousands of Mexicans die of hunger every year (FACT)

SKEETER: Well, that's Mexico, and nothing like that could ever happen again in America (HUNCH).   Food is too cheap and plentiful (SUBJECTIVE OPINION).

REALITY: What you think is cheap and plentiful depends on your financial situation (OBJECTIVE STATEMENT)

SKEETER:  My wife and I eat on $60 week.  (EXAGGERATION)

REALITY: Really?

SKEETER: OK, maybe $80.  (BACKPEDALING)

REALITY: Really?

SKEETER: OK, it's more like $110 (BACKPEDALING)

REALITY: OK, so a responsible person needs $55/week to eat.  So a family of five needs $275 / week or $1100 / month? (MATH)

SKEETER: [crickets]

REALITY: The average outlay for food-stamps is $30/week (FACT)

SKEETER: Jerk! (EMOTIONAL REACTION)

REALITY: OK, Man - good luck 

SKEETER: Well, I guess you libs just can't face facts.