Why is the gov't actively seeking new recruits for welfare?

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

You are echoing Romney's campaign.

Ha ha... just because I don't go step-line with a liberal ideology doesn't mean I'm echoing Romney's campaign. Just like I disagree with Obama, I disagree with Romney. I think they both suck. I think Romney's full of shit in regards to being for "lean government", basically and I don't agree with Republicans at all on defense/war/immigration, etc. Why I'm defending how I don't like a politician in a thread that has nothing to do with politicians/political parties is beyond me though. This really shows the pom-pom nature of people in MT these days.

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

I already addressed all your issues about "expanding welfare demand" and "budget busting" with logical responses, and I see no need to argue in circles.

I don't agree - but, I'd say if you feel that way - then leave the thread, don't derail it.

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

I am an Obama supporter but in general I am opposed to things like perpetual welfare, affirmative action, racial quotas and shit like that. I think the Clinton welfare reforms of the 90s did a great deal to reduce abuse in the welfare system and i have no problem with the way the Obama Admin (or the Bush Admin for that matter) has handled the program. And I stand by my case that welfare is, if anything, a minuscule contributor to the national debt.

Perpetual welfare and the issue discussed in this thread are linked.

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

My main reason for supporting Democrats is to stop Republicans from evil things like aggressive warfare and allowing our natural environment to be run roughshod over. I used to vote for Republicans until Bush and then the Tea Party happened.

Fair-enough - stop the evil Republicans then. I seriously think you'd benefit from reading this:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=194643

Johnny Abruzzo

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I could not care less about Romney and I'm not a supporter. I have no idea what you're talking about. Now, let's ask you, are you a pro-Obama fellow? ummm.. Yep. All fine, but I'm not bringing up political parties or people - you are. I was simply trying to discuss an "issue". How we got here, why they are doing and so on...

To summarize - the thread is on the government actively trying to boost demand for welfare, not political parties and their dim-witted leaders.

You were the first to bring up parties and suggest that the marketing being done to get the word out to more people about food stamp availability was a political move. You were also the first to bring up "pom poms". Just asking "why" about something begs for circular go-arounds, like when a 5 year old asks "why can't I eat 5 cookies" 20 minutes before dinner.

Why are they marketing? Beacause there a many people who qualify for food stamps that aren't accessing it. This does not "boost demand for welfare". The demand is already there, they are saying if you want it, this is what it is and how you access it.

For someone who gets his undies in a bunch about staying on topic, you're going all over the place. If you don't think more money should be spent on public assistance when we're running a deficit, then make the thread about that.

We present logical responses to his concerns of federal money spent on welfare, he calls us partisan hacks, and backs it up by saying he hates both guys. He must be right if he hates both of 'em, right?

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

You were the first to bring up parties and suggest that the marketing being done to get the word out to more people about food stamp availability was a political move.

No, I didn't bring up parties first. You're wrong. Cosmo did. Re-read the thread.

Go Beavers wrote:

You were also the first to bring up "pom poms".

Yes, that's because, in my opinion, people such as yourself can't discuss an "issue" without bringing in your need for the political football game aspect - particularly during election season.

Go Beavers wrote:

Just asking "why" about something begs for circular go-arounds, like when a 5 year old asks "why can't I eat 5 cookies" 20 minutes before dinner.

Circular go-arounds are what MT does. You want everyone to completely agree with you?

Go Beavers wrote:

Why are they marketing? Beacause there a many people who qualify for food stamps that aren't accessing it. This does not "boost demand for welfare". The demand is already there, they are saying if you want it, this is what it is and how you access it.

If you don't like the thread - don't come in it. I asked a question and posted something that wonders why our broke government is trying to get people to refrain from assistance from private enterprise (like family, friends). It's an interesting question. I figured it could be an interesting discussion.

Demand is a tricky word with government services because the person who consumes it is not "paying". Yet, they could get the service (let's say - food stamps). I'd argue that due to this, one can certainly say demand (or at very least - quantity demanded) is increasing for food stamps because of programs trying to increase enrollment.

Go Beavers wrote:

For someone who gets his undies in a bunch about staying on topic, you're going all over the place. If you don't think more money should be spent on public assistance when we're running a deficit, then make the thread about that.

I did make a thread about it. You're reading it right now.

inlet13

pandora wrote:

Seems to me making people dependent on the government removes their power,
keeps them docile and just plain needy...
can anyone say baaaaaaaaaaa...

all that and a blade of grass is addicting as hell and contagious.

Name of the game take take take...
get away with what you can ... people used to be too proud.

Yep.

puremagic

Title is an Boldface LIE - the government not seeking any recruits for welfare

The website is a good resource.

• www.usa.govOfficial site
o Customer service 800-333-4636
USA.gov: Home page of the U.S. Government's Official Web Portal for all government transactions, services, and information. It provides direct online access to ...
o Jobs and Education
o Benefits and Grants
o Government Jobs
o A-Z List of Agencies
o Money and Taxes
o Federal Government
o Unclaimed Money
o Agency Contacts

inlet13

puremagic wrote:

Title is an Boldface LIE - the government not seeking any recruits for welfare

The website is a good resource.

• http://www.usa.govOfficial site
o Customer service 800-333-4636
USA.gov: Home page of the U.S. Government's Official Web Portal for all government transactions, services, and information. It provides direct online access to ...
o Jobs and Education
o Benefits and Grants
o Government Jobs
o A-Z List of Agencies
o Money and Taxes
o Federal Government
o Unclaimed Money
o Agency Contacts

Ummm... no, it's actually not:

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2011/04/0154.xml&navid=NEWS_RELEASE&navtype=RT&parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&edeployment_action=retrievecontent



WASHINGTON, April 6, 2011 - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced that USDA will award grants to improve access to and increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

****Snap = Food Stamps. This is one example of actively seeking new recruits for welfare. But, there are plenty of other examples.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

If you don't like the thread - don't come in it. I asked a question and posted something that wonders why our broke government is trying to get people to refrain from assistance from private enterprise (like family, friends). It's an interesting question. I figured it could be an interesting discussion.


I did make a thread about it. You're reading it right now.

I didn't say I didn't like it, it's just that I can recall AMT getting a stern lecture from you when we went off topic on one of your threads before. It's good to know you're Joe Flexible now.

You might be making a leap when you say the government is trying to get people to refrain from assistance from private enterprise. Again, I would say that they want people to know services are available and what the services are. At that point, the person is still free to stay with support from family, etc. It's an option for them to weigh out.