El_Borak (Bill Hoyt)


Comment history

Letter: Food stamp funds

"So what exactly is your argument then?"

Lol. What I can't figure out is, if you truly don't understand what I'm arguing, why are you so dead set on arguing against it?

December 13, 2013 at 11:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Food stamp funds

Now I'm confused. I thought Irrelevant Appeal to Sex and Race was supposed to precede False Accusation of Intellectual Dishonesty. Do I not have the proper edition of Liberal Internets 101?

But since you confuse "General Mills, Dole, and Kraft" with poverty-living SNAP recipients, I suspect that Reading Comprehension ought to precede them both.

December 13, 2013 at 11:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Food stamp funds

Yeah, it does, bro. When I write, "For General Mills, Dole, and Kraft. That's where the money ends up," that's a pretty good indication that corporations are taking full advantage of welfare.

December 13, 2013 at 11:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Food stamp funds

"I fail to see how anything I posted was 'morally-posturing'."

That's not at all a surprise. But when one posts comments like "Chart and data manipulation isn't an uncommon trick to bolster talking points..." without understanding the point that is being alleged, well, that counts as mortally posturing. When one is taking sides without having the faintest notion of the arguments being made, based only on the 'side' being defended, that's morally posturing.

Hey, I don't blame you, bro. If I had nothing of value to offer, combined with low self-esteem and perhaps a little bit of neurosis as well, I'd do the same thing. Liberals gotta liberal, lest they fade into that goodnight, after all.

December 11, 2013 at 11:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Food stamp funds

Yes, thanks for not answering the question. When you decided to drag the "Old White Man Party" into it, how did my absolutely-freaking-next-sentence disagree?

December 11, 2013 at 11:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Food stamp funds

"poverty reduction measures did some measurable good"

Yup, right up until President Nixon resigned.

December 11, 2013 at 10:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Food stamp funds

"So what exactly is your argument then, inflation-adjustment or otherwise?"

Seriously? If you were truly interested in the answer I suspect you would have asked the question before you posted half a dozen morally-posturing responses. But hey, you've proven yourself a warrior on behalf of something or other. Sleep well knowing you did all you could.

December 11, 2013 at 10:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Food stamp funds

What was my next sentence?

December 11, 2013 at 10:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Food stamp funds

"Self reliance isn't achieved by the situation changing to fit your needs..."

This is exactly right, and it puts to the lie 'studies' that prove that food stamps, in the words of pseudonymous Mropus Wan, "create economic self-sufficiency." If anti-poverty programs eliminated poverty, the poverty rate would have gone down in proportion to the money spent on it. Instead, we have been stuck at about the same poverty rate for the past half century (Warning! Chart not adjusted for inflation!).

But that's really neither the point nor the problem. Everyone with a room temperature IQ understands that our national fiscal situation cannot continue as it is forever. QE4 cannot go on into infinity. We cannot run $600b+ deficits forever. SocSec and especially Medicare will need to be rescued again. And again. And Merrill is correct, a 50% reduction in defense is not only necessary, but just a start, because we spend as much on 'defense' as the rest of the world combined. We can't afford to run the world and could not do so even if we could afford it. How's that Afghanistan invasion going, btw?

And yet, we wander on, forward, year by year, never dealing with the issues but floundering over fiscal cliffs and sequesters and debt ceilings, ignoring the real in favor of the theatre version. But at some point, it's gonna break. Like Greece, like Iceland, like the USSR, at some point the bad numbers come home and you cannot adjust them away. Reality strikes. Budgets really get cut. And who gets hosed? The poor get hosed. Badly. Why do they get hosed? Not only because they have no money, but because they have no skills.

Food stamps are the world's greatest welfare program. For General Mills, Dole, and Kraft. That's where the money ends up. But can you imagine the empowerment if instead of spending $70b a year on processed, microwaveable future-heart-attacks, we spent it on legacy seeds, canning lids, and cooking and gardening lessons? What if instead of feeding the poor, we gave them the skills and tools to feed themselves? What if instead of lines at WalMart, the poor had gardens, instead of pot pies, they had fresh lettuce? What if we taught them to start businesses? What if we channeled the entrepreneurial spirit of the pot dealer into legitimate lines of work?

Nah, that's crazy talk. People who don't like food stamps really want the poor to starve. Don't they?


December 11, 2013 at 9:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

How likely are you to read a novel if it’s chosen for a common book program?

Come on. That WORKING-STORAGE SECTION is some sexy stuff.

And a GOTO statement in place of a control break? That should have that on the cover of "Coders Captive" instead of the guy with glasses and a torn-open pocket protector.

December 11, 2013 at 8 p.m. ( | suggest removal )