Jump to content

Menu

No Soda Bought With Food Stamps?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 956
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't see anyone treating FS as a sacred cow, or identifying it as their cause. What I do see is that posters are repeatedly calling for us to start with the programs where a cut would make a noticeable difference to the nation's bottom line.

 

Everyone protect their own programs. I didn't say to start with FSs. I said to cut EVERYTHING all at once. No social program should feel picked on as they'd all be affected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheesh. The private charity sector is taking on quite a burden. Where are all these private charity fairies going to come from?

 

A lot of charities are having a pretty difficult time lately. I know Catholic charities is turning a lot of people away.

 

People still have the mindset that the government should take care of it, so they don't have to.

 

America's private sector has a history of filling gaps when they arise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following this thread for days, reading with interest and following up on links, and I have a question. Since most seem to agree that the system has a lot of room for improvement, I'm curious if anyone can name a country that provides a good model for us to look at. Who does a better job of caring for those who need it but with less unnecessary waste? :bigear:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America's private sector has a history of filling gaps when they arise.

 

I see. You would rather see another real great depression without the bank bailout and with private soup kitchen lines and all of that? It builds character, I suppose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?

 

Private charity wasn't doing it before we had government programs.

 

And, as I said a minute ago, the private charities I know of personally don't have those kinds of resources. They are already straining to meet the needs presented to them (and some aren't able to do that).

 

Also, the food banks I worked at had a lot more questions about whether or not people actually needed them help. There was abuse in those private food banks because they don't have as many ways to verify need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot imagine a more humiliating system.

 

Giver to giver was Jesus' system.

 

I'm sure Eliana will have more to say on this than I can. There are a lot of ancient principles followed by Orthodox Jews that are completely ignored by modern society.

 

In the mean time, do you also suggest our society starts following principles such as, "lend money to My people…[and] exact no interest from them," (Exodus 22:24)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot imagine a more humiliating system.

 

In my universe, we try to ensure that recipients and donors do *not* have that kind of connection.

 

As usual, Eliana, you have posted a lovely and thoughtful post.

 

While I think it can work well to give directly to others, there is a potential for shame on the part of the recipients. And it is also an important moral tenet to me, that the givers don't hold it over the recipients. Reminding someone of your gift is a form of humiliation. They know already!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dulcimeramy

I would like to see dramatic spending cuts at a different level first. What if we stopped illegal wars and brought soldiers home? What if we stopped bailing out corporations? What if we stopped wasting money on frivolous corporate lawsuits and all the ways that Big Business and Wall Street play Monopoly with America's money? What if we made the fines and taxes for American businesses operating overseas so burdensome that they would return to our shores and get the factories up and running again? What if we changed our entire system of taxation? What if we gave states back the rights delineated in the constitution instead of having five layers of government for every little thing? I read somewhere that doing just that very thing would save enough to almost eliminate the national debt. Federal involvement with all things fiscal in a nation this size is unconstitutional and inefficient.

 

When Washington cleans up its own spending mess our politicians will have some respectability when they (rightfully) ask Americans to sacrificially tighten their belts. Our lawmakers should find ways to reward fiscal responsibility at every level instead of perpetuating the myth that the answer to every problem is more federal cash.

 

After all that, we should change the food stamps and welfare situation. I don't think cdrumm's ideas will work, though. Even if we must acknowledge that the system is broken, even if we must all agree that if things don't change these debates will end by default as the nation goes broke, we have to be sensible about our solutions!

 

If across-the-board cuts are made, people will get hurt. It is not overstating the case to say that babies will die. The reasons why so many Americans are unable to help themselves won't matter if they are all suddenly cut off from food stamps or welfare.

 

There is no force on earth more desperate than the mother of a hungry child who has never had to deny her child food before. She will steal, at the very least, if she has always received free food and the flow dries up suddenly without giving her time to find tools and resources to fill the gap. She will steal in the meantime. And I wouldn't blame her.

 

There is no force on earth more dangerous than a population that has been denied equal education and equal access to quality food. If the flow of benefits from the government that enslaved them dries up suddenly, the anger in our cities will be more than can be contained. And I wouldn't blame them.

 

If the entitlements are suddenly cut, there will be riots. There will be tax revolts. There may be civil war.

 

That's why we have to encourage each other in frugality and personal responsibility! The more we voluntarily wean ourselves off the free fizzy drinks and government comfort, even if it causes serious personal hardship, the more the limited resources can be used for the disabled and otherwise truly helpless. Everyone on aid should take the least they need to get by, not the most they are allowed.

 

If the educated folks with the ability to homeschool can't deny themselves these luxuries, the uneducated and uninspired will never do it. We have to go first.

 

Also, the people working on real solutions consisting of education, urban gardening, reducing entitlement spending in phases, and encouraging religious and civic groups to teach skills and offer aid...these people are right. You can't pull out the props and leave nothing! Something must be put in their place. That 'something' should be a combination of personal responsibility and community partnership.

 

If a better system can't be implemented for whatever reason, at the least the entitlements must be reduced very slowly. People must have some time to adjust. Rationing would be one way to do it. It worked in London during the Blitz. (Of course, the community aspect was absolutely critical. People shared the work, taught each other skills, etc. We are lacking that spirit in America 2011.)

 

However our lawmakers decide to do it, I hope we can make necessary changes before we all have to learn economy the hard way. The financial headlines are terrifying right now! We do not have unlimited time to pull this nation up by the bootstraps.

Edited by Dulcimeramy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giver to giver was Jesus' system.

 

I think sharing everything in common is more like it.

 

Acts 4 "32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see dramatic spending cuts at a different level first. What if we stopped illegal wars and brought soldiers home? What if we stopped bailing out corporations? What if we stopped wasting money on frivolous corporate lawsuits and all the ways that Big Business and Wall Street play Monopoly with America's money? What if we made the fines and taxes for American businesses operating overseas so burdensome that they would return to our shores and get the factories up and running again? What if we changed our entire system of taxation? What if we gave states back the rights delineated in the constitution instead of having five layers of government for every little thing? I read somewhere that doing just that very thing would save enough to almost eliminate the national debt. Federal involvement with all things fiscal in a nation this size is unconstitutional and inefficient.

 

When Washington cleans up its own spending mess our politicians will have some respectability when they (rightfully) ask Americans to sacrificially tighten their belts. Our lawmakers should find ways to reward fiscal responsibility at every level instead of perpetuating the myth that the answer to every problem is more federal cash.

 

After all that, we should change the food stamps and welfare situation. I don't think cdrumm's ideas will work, though. Even if we must acknowledge that the system is broken, even if we must all agree that if things don't change these debates will end by default as the nation goes broke, we have to be sensible about our solutions!

 

If across-the-board cuts are made, people will get hurt. It is not overstating the case to say that babies will die. The reasons why so many Americans are unable to help themselves won't matter if they are all suddenly cut off from food stamps or welfare.

 

There is no force on earth more desperate than the mother of a hungry child who has never had to deny her child food before. She will steal, at the very least, if she has always received free food and the flow dries up suddenly without giving her time to find tools and resources to fill the gap. She will steal in the meantime. And I wouldn't blame her.

 

There is no force on earth more dangerous than a population that has been denied equal education and equal access to quality food. If the flow of benefits from the government that enslaved them dries up suddenly, the anger in our cities will be more than can be contained. And I wouldn't blame them.

 

If the entitlements are suddenly cut, there will be riots. There will be tax revolts. There may be civil war.

 

That's why we have to encourage each other in frugality and personal responsibility! The more we voluntarily wean ourselves off the free fizzy drinks and government comfort, even if it causes serious personal hardship, the more the limited resources can be used for the disabled and otherwise truly helpless. Everyone on aid should take the least they need to get by, not the most they are allowed.

 

If the educated folks with the ability to homeschool can't deny themselves these luxuries, the uneducated and uninspired will never do it. We have to go first.

 

Also, the people working on real solutions consisting of education, urban gardening, reducing entitlement spending in phases, and encouraging religious and civic groups to teach skills and offer aid...these people are right. You can't pull out the props and leave nothing! Something must be put in their place. That 'something' should be a combination of personal responsibility and community partnership.

 

If a better system can't be implemented for whatever reason, at the least the entitlements must be reduced very slowly. People must have some time to adjust. Rationing would be one way to do it. It worked in London during the Blitz. (Of course, the community aspect was absolutely critical. People shared the work, taught each other skills, etc. We are lacking that spirit in America 2011.)

 

However our lawmakers decide to do it, I hope we can make necessary changes before we all have to learn economy the hard way. The financial headlines are terrifying right now! We do not have unlimited time to pull this nation up by the bootstraps.

 

Wow. Totally AWESOME post!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We disagree with it because it would cost twice as much to fund it that way. People who are in favor of cuts to these programs *are also* the ones saying we should spend twice as much on administration as we do now.

 

I was told earlier that my WIC structure idea was insulting. Money was not mentioned in response to my idea until recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The money is coming from the government for food. Therefore the government can say what qualifies as food. Soda is not food. And you can't pull the 'there aren't a lot of other choices in those neighborhoods.' I've started making my own iced tea to save money. I'm sure you can buy tea bags and sugar at 7-11.

 

To the poster whose husband was in the military and receiving food stamps, I think it's despicable. Not that you received them, but that your dh's salary was so low that you actually qualified. Anyone who is putting their life on the line in the military should be receiving a high enough salary that they can afford food for their family, including soda and ice cream if they want it. I'm so sorry that you had to go through that. I know it's not uncommon. :grouphug:

 

We live in Pa but close to NY state. We've bought food from NY and actually we aren't able to get tea with the food stamps. They recently cut that.

 

As for soda( or pop we call it here in NW PA). I agree that its not a neccesity. We don't buy it very often. The only time we do is when we decide to make a pizza for dinner. Other than that its water , tea or milk. I don't even really do juice anymore.

 

The sad part is that 'junk' food is actually less expensive than the good for you foods. When the government starts lowering the prices of vegetables, fruits and organic foods. Then I'll all but stop buying 'junk'. Not that we eat lots of junk but I know what we do get rarely ever lasts us until the end of the month and that's with buying as inexpensively as we can. I'd much rather buy lots of fruits and veggies any day of the week versus processed food. We can't buy food from a farmers market with food stamps here.

Its been a while since I've been on WIC but we only had gotten farmers market vouchers once a year and was only able really to get lots of processed foods ( cheese allowed was processed, juice(sugar), processed cereals). I've heard its changed but that's a shame that it took so log for them to offer healthy foods.

 

I agree there are people who buy unhealthy foods on food stamps , then it lumps those who try to buy the healthiest they can without blowing their budget. Also I don't think its the governments right to tell people what they can and cannot eat either. Because if they do that then the government might as well start infringing on the rest of our rights as well ( homeschooling, how to worship etc.)

 

If they really want to do it right then just take all the junk off the shelves so no one eats it and rid of the HFCS, Bromine and other garbage they put on the shelves and go back to how people use to eat.

 

Nuff said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told earlier that my WIC structure idea was insulting. Money was not mentioned in response to my idea until recently.

 

I don't think I ever called it insulting. I can only be responsible for my actions. However, you phrased it much differently just now than y ou did before. Before, your statements *sounded* something more like, "wow, these people should not be drinking soda on my dime, they need some nutrition classes!!!" Saying, "maybe it would be a good idea to provide a structure, sort of like the one WIC has?" sounds completely different. Can you see what I mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the government starts lowering the prices of vegetables, fruits and organic foods. Then I'll all but stop buying 'junk'.

 

??The government sets the prices on fruits, veggies and organic foods?

 

I have to say, I've never been so lost on so many fronts as I am in this thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

??The government sets the prices on fruits, veggies and organic foods?

 

I have to say, I've never been so lost on so many fronts as I am in this thread!

 

No, they don't. I *think* what is meant here is if the gov't would *stop* the subsidies, lobbies, and special interests when it comes to food, then the prices would naturally fall.

 

Growing up, "convenience foods" were expensive while whole, natural foods were cheap. We are seeing that really reverse now due to corn subsidies. Sales and coupons tend to center on the lousiest foods available. :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

??The government sets the prices on fruits, veggies and organic foods?

 

I have to say, I've never been so lost on so many fronts as I am in this thread!

 

 

I think she was saying the government subsidizes foods with HFCS, making them cheaper than quality foods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Protestant Xtianity doesn't have "Laws" the way we Orthodox Jews

 

With all due respect your choice of spelling Christianity is very offensive. How would you like it if I referred to you as "Orthodox X"? You chose to cut out the most important part of the most important word in "Protestant Christianity". Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I just couldn't let this pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure Eliana will have more to say on this than I can. There are a lot of ancient principles followed by Orthodox Jews that are completely ignored by modern society.

 

In the mean time, do you also suggest our society starts following principles such as, "lend money to My people…[and] exact no interest from them," (Exodus 22:24)?

 

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

With all due respect your choice of spelling Christianity is very offensive. How would you like it if I referred to you as "Orthodox X"? You chose to cut out the most important part of the most important word in "Protestant Christianity". Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I just couldn't let this pass.

 

X is Christian symbol. It comes from the Greeks and is in the original new testament depicting Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I ever called it insulting. I can only be responsible for my actions. However, you phrased it much differently just now than y ou did before. Before, your statements *sounded* something more like, "wow, these people should not be drinking soda on my dime, they need some nutrition classes!!!" Saying, "maybe it would be a good idea to provide a structure, sort of like the one WIC has?" sounds completely different. Can you see what I mean?

 

See I never said that! I said I was called insulting not that you called me insulting.

 

I said we should reform the system and that education would be in order after such a drastic change. I also said that I don't beleive FS should be spent on soda and that I don't beleive people are "entitled" to soda. I said my tax dollars fund the program. The above is how mis-representation happens, especially in a thread of this size. When you put your own spin on someone else's words in a thread of this size people take your new interpretation of someone else's ideas as that person's idea. Not cool. :thumbdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

With all due respect your choice of spelling Christianity is very offensive. How would you like it if I referred to you as "Orthodox X"? You chose to cut out the most important part of the most important word in "Protestant Christianity". Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I just couldn't let this pass.

 

No, it isn't offensive. X *means* Christ in Greek. This is an ancient convention, it isn't a modern invention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

*sigh*

 

Here is something I posted in another thread on this topic:

 

I see where you are coming from. I am not offended by your source. Thanks for clarifying.

 

ETA: In today's society, using the "X" HAS been commonplace by secular people to "remove" the element of Christ. That is what I've been told by those doing so. I now understand your intentions. For the rest of you, it really wasn't intended to hijack the thread. Sorry.

Edited by Cheryl in NM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but having everyone currently on any form of assistance all reapply would cost a *fortune*.

 

...and who would set the criteria by which we tax paying, non-benefit receiving citizens would decide who was worthy and who wasn't?

 

I, too, would rather see "my" tax money going to those who genuinely need it, but I don't see a cost effective way to improve enforcement of existing standards let alone to add more stringent qualification guidelines.

 

 

 

...and, honestly, my first emotional reaction is: do we also get to decide which corporations/industries should get (corporate) welfare, and other forms of handouts of our tax dollars?

 

 

I would rather bite the bullet and have it cost a fortune to be done with the whole system. It will be cheaper in the long run. I personally feel that the government should not be in the business of supplying, or bearing the responsibility to supply food for its people. Control the food and you control the people.

 

As to who would set the criteria? Well, it would not be politicians who could use their ability to help or not help as an election platform. It should be an outside company. Conduct it like the DMV.

 

Now, as to the military families who can't afford food. I say- disgusting. Any president, congressman, senator or elected official that cut the military budget should be drawn and quartered. I cannot imagine anything more inhumane that volunteering to serve your country and then have your family suffer because of it.

 

The military wives that have posted in this thread have my utmost respect and this post is in no way, shape or form directed at them in a disparaging way. They, of course, would not be in my reapply category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see dramatic spending cuts at a different level first. What if we stopped illegal wars and brought soldiers home? What if we stopped bailing out corporations? What if we stopped wasting money on frivolous corporate lawsuits and all the ways that Big Business and Wall Street play Monopoly with America's money? What if we made the fines and taxes for American businesses operating overseas so burdensome that they would return to our shores and get the factories up and running again? What if we changed our entire system of taxation? What if we gave states back the rights delineated in the constitution instead of having five layers of government for every little thing? I read somewhere that doing just that very thing would save enough to almost eliminate the national debt. Federal involvement with all things fiscal in a nation this size is unconstitutional and inefficient.

 

When Washington cleans up its own spending mess our politicians will have some respectability when they (rightfully) ask Americans to sacrificially tighten their belts. Our lawmakers should find ways to reward fiscal responsibility at every level instead of perpetuating the myth that the answer to every problem is more federal cash.

 

After all that, we should change the food stamps and welfare situation. I don't think cdrumm's ideas will work, though. Even if we must acknowledge that the system is broken, even if we must all agree that if things don't change these debates will end by default as the nation goes broke, we have to be sensible about our solutions!

 

If across-the-board cuts are made, people will get hurt. It is not overstating the case to say that babies will die. The reasons why so many Americans are unable to help themselves won't matter if they are all suddenly cut off from food stamps or welfare.

 

There is no force on earth more desperate than the mother of a hungry child who has never had to deny her child food before. She will steal, at the very least, if she has always received free food and the flow dries up suddenly without giving her time to find tools and resources to fill the gap. She will steal in the meantime. And I wouldn't blame her.

 

There is no force on earth more dangerous than a population that has been denied equal education and equal access to quality food. If the flow of benefits from the government that enslaved them dries up suddenly, the anger in our cities will be more than can be contained. And I wouldn't blame them.

 

If the entitlements are suddenly cut, there will be riots. There will be tax revolts. There may be civil war.

 

That's why we have to encourage each other in frugality and personal responsibility! The more we voluntarily wean ourselves off the free fizzy drinks and government comfort, even if it causes serious personal hardship, the more the limited resources can be used for the disabled and otherwise truly helpless. Everyone on aid should take the least they need to get by, not the most they are allowed.

 

If the educated folks with the ability to homeschool can't deny themselves these luxuries, the uneducated and uninspired will never do it. We have to go first.

 

Also, the people working on real solutions consisting of education, urban gardening, reducing entitlement spending in phases, and encouraging religious and civic groups to teach skills and offer aid...these people are right. You can't pull out the props and leave nothing! Something must be put in their place. That 'something' should be a combination of personal responsibility and community partnership.

 

If a better system can't be implemented for whatever reason, at the least the entitlements must be reduced very slowly. People must have some time to adjust. Rationing would be one way to do it. It worked in London during the Blitz. (Of course, the community aspect was absolutely critical. People shared the work, taught each other skills, etc. We are lacking that spirit in America 2011.)

 

However our lawmakers decide to do it, I hope we can make necessary changes before we all have to learn economy the hard way. The financial headlines are terrifying right now! We do not have unlimited time to pull this nation up by the bootstraps.

 

And what shall we do when we run out of money to pay for these things? Oh, wait, we're already borrowing forty cents on the dollar to pay for everything people demand.

 

I think you'll see riots, but for the opposite reason. Most of the 50% that are footing the bill are getting tired of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think sharing everything in common is more like it.

 

Jesus clearly takes giving personally:

 

"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.

 

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'

And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"

Matthew 25.35-40 ESV

 

Prooftexting works both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

umm, as this thread proves, if it offends "me" then it is "offensive". you don't get to tell me what i find offensive. ;)

 

You didn't say "I find it offensive," you said it IS offensive. Spycar got taken to task for something like that just the other day, ask him.

 

Here is the first post of yours *I* could find in the thread that someone called insulting:

Originally Posted by Cheryl in NM viewpost.gif

But it all goes back to choices made at the beginning of an adult's life. you=universal you in the following questions. Do you start a family before having the means to support that family? Do you insist on a standard of living that you cannot afford? Why not live at home until you can afford to rent or own a house? This is what I'm saying we should teach our children. Fiscal responsibility begins as soon as our children begin wanting "things". Personal responsibility should be taught across the board. Don't have s*x unless you are ready and able to support a family. Don't spend money you don't have or make commitments that you can't, right now, afford to pay for.

The post that called it insulting said that you were assumptions about how people got in a bad situation. I don't see any reform suggestions there. Maybe you can point me toward the posts you meant?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what shall we do when we run out of money to pay for these things? Oh, wait, we're already borrowing forty cents on the dollar to pay for everything people demand.

 

I think you'll see riots, but for the opposite reason. Most of the 50% that are footing the bill are getting tired of it.

 

Perhaps if corperations were held to the same standard of taxation it would be less of an issue.

 

I paid more in taxes than GE did last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do not prove her point. Those are personal mandates, not mandates for governments. Jesus did not say, 'The state shall take that man's money by force of government power, and give it to that woman, so she can eat.'

 

You say personal, I say societal, yes he used an I, but he was giving an example for ALL. Or the bible was just written for some of us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do not prove her point. Those are personal mandates, not mandates for governments. Jesus did not say, 'The state shall take that man's money by force of government power, and give it to that woman, so she can eat.'

 

But posters keep claiming it is "their" money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't mean you have to take offense, but that doesn't mean he was right, and I doubt it was guilt he was acting out of, more like self righteousness.

 

Giving comes with no strings attached, otherwise it isn't a gift. Those taxes I pay to support others who need are my gift, I don't want a tally sheet, I don't want a thank you note. Give the person their dignity or is that a required sacrifice of obtaining help, too?

 

Reform does need to happen, but it cannot happen to those who need help the most.

 

Food stamps are not a gift. They are a government program.

 

Miriam Webster's defines gift as: something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation

 

Federal taxes are not money voluntarily transferred by me to the FS recipient. Federal taxes are money taken from me at the threat of imprisonment and given to another without compensation to me OR to the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do not prove her point. Those are personal mandates, not mandates for governments. Jesus did not say, 'The state shall take that man's money by force of government power, and give it to that woman, so she can eat.'

 

Oh good grief! Governments have responsibilities towards the people. Always have and always will.

 

But posters keep claiming it is "their" money.

 

Thank you!

 

 

BTW, my husband points out that God condemns Israel in the OT for not caring for the poor. It's everyone's responsibility. The government sometimes will create ways for EVERYONE to help in this manner.

Edited by mommaduck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In NM, besides food stamps, we have WIC. WIC is for pregnant women and is paid until the baby's 1st birthday. There is a list of food that can be purchased with your WIC money and no other food is allowed. It's stuff like milk, certain whole grain cereals, dried beans, cheese.

 

IMO, foods stamps would work better if they were handled this way. Instead of the list of stuff you can't buy, have a list of stuff you can buy. There are strings when you are using someone else's money. If you don't like; don't use it.

 

For those who say they would starve to death without food stamps; almost all churches have food pantries and will give anyone food regardless of denomination or church attendance. If the churches in your area don't, go to the LDS church.

 

Mrs Mungo, here you go. here's my first post in this thread that states my idea that the FS system should mimic the WIC structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Federal taxes are not money voluntarily transferred by me to the FS recipient. Federal taxes are money taken from me at the threat of imprisonment and given to another without compensation to me OR to the government.

 

You receive compensation from the federal government for your taxes, we all do. This is like me complaining that the federal government takes my money at the threat of imprisonment and builds roads for you or watches the borders in NM for you or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...