GPS_Flex
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,726
- Reaction score
- 648
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The Department of Agriculture moved Friday to "cease future production" of advertisements that encourage people to go on food stamps, FoxNews.com has learned, following criticism over what was described as an "aggressive" campaign to grow enrollment.
The department had come under fire for a 10-part series of Spanish-language "novelas" that trumpeted the benefits of the food stamp program. The radio ads were produced in 2008, but continued to be available for use.
After those ads drew scrutiny, though, the USDA removed them from its website.
USDA moves to end questionable food stamp ads after criticism | Fox News
This surprises me. A day after the Obama Administration attempts to remove the work requirement from the welfare reform law they back down on the “everyone go get food stamps” advertisements?
This government push to get people addicted to welfare and government assistance just smells like a crack dealer giving some kid his first few rocks for free.
May I suggest that this is simply an example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing?
Most of these many government agencies are run by political appointees whose primary qualifications are which country club they golf at. It's natural that you would have conflict of direction. I assure you that Obama does not personally run all the government oir even have much control if he wanted to.
A lesson in irony.
The Food Stamp Program, administered by the Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest number of food stamps and free meals ever.
Meanwhile the National Park Service, administered by the Department of the Interior, tells us "Please Do Not Feed The Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
This ends today's lesson.
People are not squirrels.
We are still animals and if we let others take care of us, we forget how to take care of ourselves. I’m pretty sure the courts agree with this because they are always ordering that a spouse must pay alimony to another spouse after a divorce.
The average length of time a participant stays on the program is 9 months.
That's not why courts grants alimony -- but whatever.
Here's a fact sheet from the USDA:
Can you show that long-term dependency on SNAP is widespread? Obviously, the precipitous rise in SNAP enrollment due to our recent recession would skew that number lower, but this fact sheet references 2006 data, so it predates the rise. Seems that most people are off the program within a year. Perhaps your theories about dependency don't hold up to scrutiny?
Sure it is in many cases. If someone has been a homemaker for so many years that their likely prospects for earning a decent income have diminished, the court will take that into consideration.
Another similar scenario is the long term unemployed person. The longer they are out of work, the harder it is for them to find a job. Welfare and food stamps propagate poverty by allowing capable people to get their needs met without working.
Now the Obama Administration is trying to waive the work requirement altogether.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The advertisements that were attempting to convince people who didn’t want to receive food stamps or didn’t think they qualified was likely a bit more nefarious.The point of the programs is to help people meet their needs.
That isn’t possible because the great one promised us the unemployment problem would be fixed if we allowed him to spend a trillion dollars of our tax dollars to stimulate the economy and the great one is never wrong.We have systemic unemployment.
No, it’s about creating lazy poor people who are reliant upon the government teat and reliably vote for the sugar daddy politicians who provide for them by making those greedy rich people pay their fair share.This is not about lazy poor people, as the data show.
Yes they are!No they're not.
May I suggest that this is simply an example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing?
Most of these many government agencies are run by political appointees whose primary qualifications are which country club they golf at. It's natural that you would have conflict of direction. I assure you that Obama does not personally run all the government oir even have much control if he wanted to.
A lesson in irony.
The Food Stamp Program, administered by the Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest number of food stamps and free meals ever.
Meanwhile the National Park Service, administered by the Department of the Interior, tells us "Please Do Not Feed The Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.
This ends today's lesson.
I've seen this before. If you want to continue on this path... What would the park rangers do if the animals were starving due to let's say, drought? Would the perhaps help the animals out until the drought ended? I think they might.
I believe not. At least from what I see, these "animal people" who produce these TV shows always make it a point to NOT help out or assist or interfere with these animals at any time, for any reason, no matter how hard watching them might pull at their heartstrings. Why? Because it is up to the animals to survive. Only the strong survive. If you assist then you are not letting mother nature take its course, as a drought is something naturally occurring, just like forest fires, etc.
Although the post above stated the reason for "do not feed the animals" was funny, it was not right. Park rangers dont want you feeding animals because some of these animals are dangerous to humans and they dont want them comfy around humans. They dont want them to see humans as a source of food. They aren't really talking about feeding the squirrels. They're talking about larger animals.
They wont forget how to get food naturally any more than squirrels or birds in a subdivision forget how to get food naturally with all of the human-inserted bird feeders around.
Most likely you are right. My point should have been, we are not animals. I certainly don't want "only the strong survive" applie to people, especially children.
I've seen this before. If you want to continue on this path... What would the park rangers do if the animals were starving due to let's say, drought? Would the perhaps help the animals out until the drought ended? I think they might.
We are still animals and if we let others take care of us, we forget how to take care of ourselves. I’m pretty sure the courts agree with this because they are always ordering that a spouse must pay alimony to another spouse after a divorce.
Well, thats just it, we are animals. Absolutely, 100%. While we think we are "above" all other species, mother nature is a cruel girl, she doesn't see us as any different. We have the brains to get ourselves through tough times, but that doesn't make us any different. In fact, as humans, we artificially interfere with nature with drugs, surgeries, etc. I can't say thats a bad thing because I'm alive today because of surgery.
But to say we aren't animals, or children aren't animals, is not true. We are just another species. Our big egos make us feel we are superior, but we aren't. Think about it, without tools where in the food chain would we be? Certainly not at the top as a lion could eat us for lunch. What puts us on top is our brains, our ability to create tools and weapons for hunting and defense.
But this is way the hell off topic. Sorry about that.
No, really, continue comparing poor people to animals.
People are not squirrels.
Did you see the word "poor" in my statement? Are you trying to be sleazy now or does it just come naturally?
Lot of rich people collecting food stamps, are there?
That's not why courts grants alimony -- but whatever.
Here's a fact sheet from the USDA:
Can you show that long-term dependency on SNAP is widespread? Obviously, the precipitous rise in SNAP enrollment due to our recent recession would skew that number lower, but this fact sheet references 2006 data, so it predates the rise. Seems that most people are off the program within a year. Perhaps your theories about dependency don't hold up to scrutiny?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?