On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:00:59 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Steve B wrote:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...says-most.html

Where exactly in the definition of poor does it say thay can't have anything?

It's hard to believe human beings can be as self-centered (I've got mine - screw
you)as what I keep seeing here.

Would you rather they don't get cable, and spend their evenings roaming your
neighborhood looking for entertainment of different sorts?


Think about it.
The poor have these toys.
Xbox, cable TV, microwaves, cars, etc.
So that means they're not poor.
There are no poor people!
Pretty easy to see the motive here.
Cut government spending on poor people however possible.
Because they aren't poor!
I don't like spending on "welfare" myself.
But the answer to that is jobs.
The problem with that is to get good jobs back here requires taking a
whip to the "free trade" principles these guys got rich from.
Not that Obama is any better, being surrounded by Wall Streeters.
So outfits like the Heritage Foundation are fighting a losing battle
anyway.
America will always take care of the poor to prevent rioting and
subsequent "socialism," and just become more of a welfare state until
jobs come back.
Look at the food stamp program.
Walmart is the biggest employer in the U.S.
Check out how many Walmart employees are on food stamps.
And Medicaid.
You think Walmart wants food stamps to go away?
The big "capitalist" is a living example of "socialism."
hehe.

--Vic