Apparently, the incendiary farmer is a recipient of government welfare, according to a local newspaper blog:
The Raytown farmer who posted a sign on a semi-truck trailer accusing Democrats of being the “Party of Parasites” received more than $1 million in federal crop subsidies since 1995.
But David Jungerman says the payouts don’t contradict the sign he put up in a corn field in Bates County along U.S. 71 Highway. “That’s just my money coming back to me,” Jungerman, 72, said Monday. “I pay a lot in taxes. I’m not a parasite.”
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
This man doesn't create the farm subsidies for his land and crops. That is done by the govt. and is for all farmers. It is ludicrous that some liberal journalist would try to discredit Mr. Jungerman that way. As a private business owner producing baby furniture and as a farmer he not only produces far more than most people do, he also creates jobs and benefits the community. The liberal parasites he spoke of must have felt guilt at being called out and let their tolerance turn to their more normal state of rage.
As a side note, I know of people whose cars have been vandalized because they had a "NOBAMA" bumper sticker or similar on their car. Even during the election some had their cars vandalized because of their McCain/Palin bumper stickers. The party of tolerance never fails to prove their tolerance only extends to those that agree with them and think just like they do.
Ayyyyup. Welfare stinks, unless you're rich and getting it, eh.
Or unless you don't understand what a "crop subsidy" is... he isn't on welfare. He's not sitting at home with his thirteen kids, with a welfare cellphone, selling dope out of his living room.
Without subsidies, these farmers would go broke in times of price dips for their crops and would have to close shop.
Agricultural Subsidies are one of the few government handouts that I DON'T mind paying for...
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Cajun83 For This Useful Post:
Conservative economics is so confusing to me...conservatives favor the free market uber alles except when...they don't.
Thus, agricultural subsidies and, of course, all the other kinds of business welfare, through which we taxpayers do our best to assist our needy corporations.
Last edited by hakr100; June 23rd, 2010 at 08:51 AM.
Conservative economics is so confusing to me...conservatives favor the free market uber alles except when...they don't.
Thus, agricultural subsidies and, of course, all the other kinds of business welfare, through which we taxpayers do our best to assist our needy corporations.
Better than liberal economics... make everyone broke so we ALL have to live off of welfare.
Conservative economics is so confusing to me...conservatives favor the free market uber alles except when...they don't.
Thus, agricultural subsidies and, of course, all the other kinds of business welfare, through which we taxpayers do our best to assist our needy corporations.
Umm, if farmers didn't receive these subsidies, YOU would be paying $15 for a can of beans. This is something I fully support.
Welfare can't be all that bad...what with all those corporations lining up at the public's trough.
There is a difference between "welfare" and government subsidies.
Welfare is for an individual, subsidies are not. The idea of welfare was a great one until those on it decided that they don't ever want to get off of it and will go out of their way to ensure they never get off of it. A very large percentage of people on welfare have no intentions of ever providing society with anything whereas the companies that are taking government subsidies (welfare, if you like that word better) are providing society with something.
You can call them what you wish if that is what you need to suit your liberal agenda but they are not one in the same. Not even close... and I understand that government subsidies are sometimes abused but when a hardcore liberal such as Obama dumps millions of dollars into bailout plans and drops a 6 month moratoruim on deep water drilling in the Gulf... we really can't question conservative economics... can we?
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cajun83 For This Useful Post:
Welfare as you think you know it is practically non-existent today. If you are seriously disabled, in addition to SSI, you might get a small payment from your state or local government.
There are still, of course, subsistence payments to help maintain the children of the impoverished. If you want to take these away, you'd best have a plan ready to go that will maintain these kids.
I can certain question "conservative economics." It's pretty much what has ruined this country and its middle class.
Welfare as you think you know it is practically non-existent today. If you are seriously disabled, in addition to SSI, you might get a small payment from your state or local government.
Now that... is a riot! Go talk to the 300 people that live in the section 8 housing down the highway from me. There are entire communities that are surviving on government checks. I don't know what part of the country YOU live in but across the river in New Orleans... it is apparent that welfare "as I think I know it" is there in full force.
Quote:
There are still, of course, subsistence payments to help maintain the children of the impoverished. If you want to take these away, you'd best have a plan ready to go that will maintain these kids.
The problem isn't the children, it is the parents that teach the children that they don't have to do anything and will receive a check at the beginning of each month. You are living in a magical little bubble if you don't see that this is still going on today. Just recently, there was a story in the paper about a man who was denied his welfare check for some reason and he stated in the newspaper "they can't take my check away, I've been on welfare for 43 years... and my mom has been on it for 80!". Yeah... it doesn't exist.
Quote:
I can certain question "conservative economics." It's pretty much what has ruined this country and its middle class.
You can question it... you can also daydream about a pet unicorn... but it doesn't make your opinion any more real than that flying, horned equine!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cajun83 For This Useful Post:
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajun83
You can question it... you can also daydream about a pet unicorn... but it doesn't make your opinion any more real than that flying, horned equine!
For your information, unicorns don't fly. I resent that hate that people spew about these mythical creatures. You act as if daydreaming about them is a bad thing. Should I go back to my fantasies of kicking whoever designed the keyboard for the Droid in the junk?
Welfare as you think you know it is practically non-existent today. If you are seriously disabled, in addition to SSI, you might get a small payment from your state or local government.
There are still, of course, subsistence payments to help maintain the children of the impoverished. If you want to take these away, you'd best have a plan ready to go that will maintain these kids.
I can certain question "conservative economics." It's pretty much what has ruined this country and its middle class.
Wait what? Take a stroll through the Chicago Projects and I dare you to find someone who is NOT on welfare.
So I am rather uneducated on the history and laws surrounding welfare but I thought that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act limited you to a total of 5 years that you can be on welfare in your lifetime.
__________________
"Both politicians and diapers need to be changed frequently, and for the same reason." -Unknown
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
So I am rather uneducated on the history and laws surrounding welfare but I thought that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act limited you to a total of 5 years that you can be on welfare in your lifetime.
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajun83
Now that... is a riot! Go talk to the 300 people that live in the section 8 housing down the highway from me. There are entire communities that are surviving on government checks. I don't know what part of the country YOU live in but across the river in New Orleans... it is apparent that welfare "as I think I know it" is there in full force.
Then you are probably familiar with the name Sharon Jasper! The welfare queen of all welfare queens. She can work but refuses to, gripes and whines that her Section 8 housing isn't good enough, and says she is being abused because her 60" HDTV isn't a plasma. Jasper says it is "pitiful what people give you."
Jasper also is proud of the "legacy" she is leaving her children, raising them that they don't need to work and they should live off of welfare, like her grown children are doing.
Quote:
Sharon Jasper, a former St. Bernard complex resident presented by activists Tuesday as a victim of changing public housing policies, took a moment before the start of the City Hall protest to complain about her subsidized private apartment, which she called a "slum." A HANO voucher covers her rent on a unit in an old Faubourg St. John home, but she said she faced several hundred dollars in deposit charges and now faces a steep utility bill.
Then you are probably familiar with the name Sharon Jasper! The welfare queen of all welfare queens. She can work but refuses to, gripes and whines that her Section 8 housing isn't good enough, and says she is being abused because her 60" HDTV isn't a plasma. Jasper says it is "pitiful what people give you."
Jasper also is proud of the "legacy" she is leaving her children, raising them that they don't need to work and they should live off of welfare, like her grown children are doing.
That's for federal welfare. The states do their own thing. If you want to understand welfare laws, ask someone who is on it for longer than that limit. It is a career for some and they know those laws better than anyone.
That makes me wonder, which is more profitable: putting that amount of effort into getting an education and working or scamming the system?
Yeah, and Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law is unconstitutional (because we all know illegals have rights man... and they are covered by the constitution...)
I know what the law says... but I also know what is really going on.
That's for federal welfare. The states do their own thing. If you want to understand welfare laws, ask someone who is on it for longer than that limit. It is a career for some and they know those laws better than anyone.
That makes me wonder, which is more profitable: putting that amount of effort into getting an education and working or scamming the system?
Actually the law says that states have the rights to shorten the amount of time that people receive welfare.
If its a state thing then I'm surprised that there is any extra welfare in the southeast...
welfare that isnt limited to those in desperate times and nees and isnt limited in the amount of time people can get it just needs to go away... you refuse to make something out of yourself the go f*** yourself. its not our responsibility to fuel your laziness.
i've seen section 8 housing here in the phoenix areas. homes i couldnt afford myself being handed over to section 8 residents... those homes and neighborhoods have been completely wrecked.
welfare that isnt limited to those in desperate times and nees and isnt limited in the amount of time people can get it just needs to go away... you refuse to make something out of yourself the go f*** yourself. its not our responsibility to fuel your laziness.
What is your complete plan to house, feed, clothe, et cetera, the innocent children of those you infer are lazy parents? And...what if there are no jobs.
if the parents arent responsible enough to be able to take care of the kids then they shouldnt have them... most parents on welfare see their kids as nothing more than a paycheck, the more kids, the higher the check. i grew up in south phoenix, i walked to school in the ghettos, hid behind walls and dropped to the ground for drive bys, and grew up dirt ass poor. my parents had $16 more in their bank account than welfare allowed, my dad worked two jobs, my mom worked for the schools. we didnt have new cars, credit card debt, big tvs, cordless phones, or anything else fancy for that matter, and my parents would wait to eat most nights to make sure we didnt go to bed hungry. the way the system is taken advantage of now is completely ridiculous.
as for the kids that need housed, clothed, fed, et cetera, its pretty easy. you take all the money that tax payers are already paying that is supposed to go to housing and feeding and providing all medical care for the kids and you give it to them and dump the lazy ignorant leeches of the systems on their a$$es out on the streets and stop this endless cycle that currently exists where people continue to use and abuse the system because that is how they have been tought by their parental figures.
as i said, there are people the need help, a helping hand isnt a problem, enabling people to be lazy and irresponsible is.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ballisticn8 For This Useful Post:
...umm I'm not sure on how your planning on preventing people from having kids. And you can't just give a bunch of money to little kids and expect them to know how to use it to take care of themselves...
But I agree that a system that promotes a lack of work ethic and provides endless handouts is counterproductive. I'm still confused about the 5 year thing, I don't see how the government can go against its own laws, or even it if currently is.
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenze
...umm I'm not sure on how your planning on preventing people from having kids. And you can't just give a bunch of money to little kids and expect them to know how to use it to take care of themselves...
But I agree that a system that promotes a lack of work ethic and provides endless handouts is counterproductive. I'm still confused about the 5 year thing, I don't see how the government can go against its own laws, or even it if currently is.
The current system encourages people who can't afford to have children to have more and more children. More children equals more government money and handouts. There is a strong incentive to pop out kid after kid. These same people have access to free condoms and other methods of birth control. Low cost or free abortions too. But they won't do that because each kid they have means more welfare, a bigger Section 8 home, etc. We need to take away the incentive and I bet the birth rates will drop.
The current system encourages people who can't afford to have children to have more and more children. More children equals more government money and handouts. There is a strong incentive to pop out kid after kid. These same people have access to free condoms and other methods of birth control. Low cost or free abortions too. But they won't do that because each kid they have means more welfare, a bigger Section 8 home, etc. We need to take away the incentive and I bet the birth rates will drop.
Agreed. If you can't afford a kid, it should be considered child abuse, and be taken away just like other child abusers. We shouldn't hand them money.
The Following User Says Thank You to IOWA For This Useful Post:
And then what? Put them into drug rehab programs that are so over-booked, there won't be vacancies for months or even years?
When you guys put forth your ideas for social experimentation, it would be nice to see fully thought out proposals.
Nope, let them take some responsibility for themselves. We as a society don't need to cure people of their drug habits, but we don't have to give them FREE MONEY for being addicts either. Sorry if it is heartless, but I got past my smokin dope phase, WITHOUT welfare. They can too.
There are enough people who need our social programs, that don't have drug problems. Give the money to them.
Why do you feel it is necessary to support people who CHOOSE to do drugs instead of getting a job? I think that you have a backward idea of what is right.
I am not a conservative, so don't use that argument against me, either. I am all for social programs to help those who need it. But not for those who chose to get high instead of raising their kids, or going to work. If you were high all day at your job, would your boss still give you a check, or would you still have a job? If he/she would, then I am sure to see a failing business. If we give welfare recipients a lower standard than the rest of us, what are we teaching them? Rewarding them for breaking the law?
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to 330D For This Useful Post:
I am also not a conservative but I think that at the very least it would provide another incentive to stop their drug habits. Also I am for helping those who want and need it in certain situations, however not if they are not willing to help themselves too.
Nope, let them take some responsibility for themselves. We as a society don't need to cure people of their drug habits, but we don't have to give them FREE MONEY for being addicts either. Sorry if it is heartless, but I got past my smokin dope phase, WITHOUT welfare. They can too.
There are enough people who need our social programs, that don't have drug problems. Give the money to them.
Why do you feel it is necessary to support people who CHOOSE to do drugs instead of getting a job? I think that you have a backward idea of what is right.
I am not a conservative, so don't use that argument against me, either. I am all for social programs to help those who need it. But not for those who chose to get high instead of raising their kids, or going to work. If you were high all day at your job, would your boss still give you a check, or would you still have a job? If he/she would, then I am sure to see a failing business. If we give welfare recipients a lower standard than the rest of us, what are we teaching them? Rewarding them for breaking the law?
Most "welfare" these days is in the form of aid to dependent children. Whatever the shortcomings of the parents, Draconian take-aways will hurt those innocent kids.
Most "welfare" these days is in the form of aid to dependent children. Whatever the shortcomings of the parents, Draconian take-aways will hurt those innocent kids.
Then give the money to foster families who can take care of them.
Then give the money to foster families who can take care of them.
Or adoptive families. There are tons of people wanting adoptions. Seems like the obvious solution to me. And a take away to a more caring family would be more humane to say the least.
Then give the money to foster families who can take care of them.
There aren't enough foster families or adoptive parents to begin to absorb the kids that would need them. There isn't now. A very high percentage of the young homeless are products of foster homes that "expired" on them.
Reminds me of the time Reagan pushed for "deinstitutionalization" of many of those residing in mental health facilities. Reagan said local facilities would grow to absorb those released. Well he never pushed Congress to fund those facilities and the local governments didn't have the funds, either, so the number of mentally ill homeless grew.
hakr100,
Yeah, put them into drug rehab. A 10% success rate (just throwing that number out there) is better than 0%. A druggie shouldn't be raising kids. Take away the kids. Not being able to afford kids is child abuse. A good adopted mother is a million times better than a horrible biological mother. Check up on the welfare families and not just by telephone. Go to the house and look at the living conditions. There are tons of jobs that can be filled by welfare recipients. I've seen people in orange jumpsuits picking up trash, why can't someone who is "needing a job" do the same? There are lots of "Work Release Programs" that put excons to work, put welfare recipients to work doing the same thing. Simple. Adopt a Highway. Lots of those signs. How about "Highway adopted by Zip Code 90221 Welfare Recipients" and make them clean up our highways. Dude, there are tons of answers for them.
By the way, if you have cable, internet, cell phone, etc, you are rich. Maybe not extremely wealthy, but you live a rich lifestyle. Some people need to realize that. They seem to think those things are the norm.
And comparing crop subsidies to welfare is just stupid, come on now.
There aren't enough foster families or adoptive parents to begin to absorb the kids that would need them. There isn't now. A very high percentage of the young homeless are products of foster homes that "expired" on them.
I see celebs going overseas to get their pick of the litter all the time.
Maybe if we gave foster and or adoptive families more of a monetary supplement, there would be a lot more.... I would do it in a second, but could never afford to, as it stands now. I'm not saying that we need to "buy" these kids families, but I am sure it could help the problem of there not being enough foster families.
Maybe if we gave foster and or adoptive families more of a monetary supplement, there would be a lot more.... I would do it in a second, but could never afford to, as it stands now. I'm not saying that we need to "buy" these kids families, but I am sure it could help the problem of there not being enough foster families.
It would take more than a "monetary supplement" for society to successfully place the burden for these hundreds of thousands or millions of these kids on foster families. Foster kids who are not placed with wealthy families are only given the short end of the stick in terms of financial and emotional support. There's only enough there for the cheapest of medical care, usually the worst schools, and very rare counselling. We'd really have to redo the entire system for it to be effective.
And when foster kids reach 18, then what? As it is now, there's no more support. Many find themselves on the streets.
I'm not defending drug-addicted parents with minor children.What i am positing is that the solution is far more complex and expensive than anyone is envisioning.
It would take more than a "monetary supplement" for society to successfully place the burden for these hundreds of thousands or millions of these kids on foster families. Foster kids who are not placed with wealthy families are only given the short end of the stick in terms of financial and emotional support. There's only enough there for the cheapest of medical care, usually the worst schools, and very rare counselling. We'd really have to redo the entire system for it to be effective.
And when foster kids reach 18, then what? As it is now, there's no more support. Many find themselves on the streets.
I'm not defending drug-addicted parents with minor children.What i am positing is that the solution is far more complex and expensive than anyone is envisioning.
So wait, your saying possibly making some of these children a productive member of society is more expensive than letting them keep in the cycle when perpetuates drugs, violence, and more leeching off the system? Please.
Device(s): Motorola Droid 2 R2D2 edition, Motorola Xoom with over 100 RELEVANT, working apps added (NE2 2/17/20
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 150
Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100
There aren't enough foster families or adoptive parents to begin to absorb the kids that would need them. There isn't now.
-snip-
Some solution.
It isn't that there aren't enough, the foster care systems are more broken than an iPhone trying to get a signal. In some areas, it is a county program. "Why is this a problem?" you say? If your county is stupid, the kid may not get adopted because he is black and they won't place black children with white or *ahem* mostly white people or the opposite.
Such solutions should be handled locally and we need to keep an eye on these folks because they are the ones screwing it up. The rich losers at the top just sign papers, fund/don't fund things and are so far from reality that they should be fired.
It just makes me want to kick someone in the junk when you are prevented from helping someone out "because."
Most foster children programs are handled locally. One problem is that there are not nearly enough resources to handle the number of foster children there are today. And to keep an eye on foster parents and foster kids, we'd need a lot more social workers, and in most places they aren't paid diddley, so there is a glaring shortage of capable workers.
I agree the system needs a total redo, but I don't see where the resources are. You know...money, personnel, will, political muscle.
Conservative economics is so confusing to me...conservatives favor the free market uber alles except when...they don't.
Thus, agricultural subsidies and, of course, all the other kinds of business welfare, through which we taxpayers do our best to assist our needy corporations.
Sorry, I don't consider corporate welfare and subsidies conservative economics. I am aware of the hypocrisy of some so-called conservatives who do not see the conflict, but I do, as do most conservatives I know. I don't favor gov't intertwined with business, picking and choosing which business/industry gets political favors and who does not. Just because a policy is favored by someone with an (R) next to their name does not make that policy conservative.
Device(s): Sprint HTC Hero with 318 Hemi and Edelbrock headers.
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 99
Thanked 38 Times in 33 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100
There aren't enough foster families or adoptive parents to begin to absorb the kids that would need them. There isn't now. A very high percentage of the young homeless are products of foster homes that "expired" on them.
You just toss out liberal ballgagger logic and your claims - with no citations - whenever you want, don't you? Do you really expect people to believe the stuff you make up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakr100
Reminds me of the time Reagan pushed for "deinstitutionalization" of many of those residing in mental health facilities. Reagan said local facilities would grow to absorb those released. Well he never pushed Congress to fund those facilities and the local governments didn't have the funds, either, so the number of mentally ill homeless grew.
Some solution.
As a result of liberals leading the charge in such libby powerhouses as Seattle, the mentally ill are usually just put in jail with sub-standard treatment due to liberal over-spending on everything else.
I'm not defending drug-addicted parents with minor children.What i am positing is that the solution is far more complex and expensive than anyone is envisioning.
Thing is, SOME help is better than giving tax dollars to drug addicted parents. Meaning, let us give all the welfare from the failed drug test families to a foster care system and see what it does. It isn't the end all to be all, but at least the money isn't supporting some drug dealer somewhere....
I appreciate your arguments, but just sitting back and being negative and saying that a solution I offer just won't work is not really helping, eh? I am a simple kind of guy, and think on simple terms, just trying to offer something different.
Why I don't put bumper stickers on my truck...
