Go back
70% of SNAP recipients have full time jobs

70% of SNAP recipients have full time jobs

Debates


@AverageJoe1 said
We don’t like it because we cannot afford it. It would all be a concern if we told the world that we do free healthcare, because the world would pile into our country. I would rather, when we need migrants, to go and find them and hire them to come into our country. It is not up to the migrant to decide to come into our country.
If you can’t afford it why do rich people keep getting richer?


@AThousandYoung said
So how did it go with the insane man in a wheelchair cutting your grass?
Would be a good point, if I were wririing about the infirmed. I am writing about able bodied men who shuffle around downtown that can easily do labor, but are seemingly ok with just getting a meal at the soup kitchen on occasion, and doing basically nothing. Not writing about he infirmed. I have said before, this country should support the 50M who need real help.
We could afford it if Marauder does not get his way with providing medical care to people who are not citizens. Healthcare is a conhtract betweent eh country and its citizens, you see. He wants to give it to anyone who has come here 'looking for a better life'. Well, when other countries learn tht MarauderCare is avaialbe to them, we will be flooded with those aliens.
.............................and not be able to take care of the 50 Million.

1 edit

@AThousandYoung said
If you can’t afford it why do rich people keep getting richer?
You suggest that if we do not allow rich to get richer, that the money they WOULD have made actually 'exists' somewhere, to be used to support people? Or, further, that if they MAKE the money, that we could use what they make? (If we did that, billionaires would dwindle in numbers, which would shut down their contributions to society...like Bezos' Amazon and 1.5 million jobs). Could you elaborate?

Side Note: The money that I say could 'exist' somewhere? Would it 'exist' if you disappered the rich guy? You sure you want to get into this?

1 edit

@AThousandYoung said
We should evict them legally and we need more judges for that.

The criminal Trump is breaking the law with these evictions.
I explained to you this is being done legally through "EXPEDITED REMOVAL"

Why do you keep saying its illegal?

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/expedited-removal/


@AThousandYoung said
We should evict them legally and we need more judges for that.

The criminal Trump is breaking the law with these evictions.
Technically, it is correct that if a guy breaks into your house that he is subject to laws before we jail him for a lot of years.
But, if a person breaks in that is NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF YOUR COUNTRY, we have to ask, is he entitled to the same protections that a citizen that breaks into your house is entitled to?
I submit that he is not. DO you think he is ? Why would you think that?

At what point is an illegal entitled to the same benefits of the USA as is a citizen?

Careful, I have won all issues today.


@AverageJoe1 said
You suggest that if we do not allow rich to get richer, that the money they WOULD have made actually 'exists' somewhere, to be used to support people? Or, further, that if they MAKE the money, that we could use what they make? (If we did that, billionaires would dwindle in numbers, which would shut down their contributions to society...like Bezos' Amazon and 1.5 million ...[text shortened]... ' somewhere? Would it 'exist' if you disappered the rich guy? You sure you want to get into this?
The government is overspending by a billion dollars an hour. It was not doing that last year.

Would you care to explain how government has grown so much bigger in just a few months under trump and yet at the same time we can no longer find resources to feed our own citizens?


@Mott-The-Hoople said
I explained to you this is being done legally through "EXPEDITED REMOVAL"

Why do you keep saying its illegal?

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/expedited-removal/
Take the legalese out of it. Expedited removal was a process for immigrants who were here for a very short period (e.g. crossed the border on foot) but don't meet asylum criteria. That is reasonable and clear.

But expedited removal is now being used for immigrants who have been here awhile. One example is a diner waitress who moved here in 2000 and her Visa paperwork expired and she was deported without any hearing or opportunity to offer an explanation.

I think I'm a middle roader here. I've tangled with Marauder on this too. Immigration status is not and never will be a heads or tails, black or white issue. It's complex and judges are often necessary. Expedited removal only works for the immediate border crossers.


@wildgrass said
The government is overspending by a billion dollars an hour. It was not doing that last year.

Would you care to explain how government has grown so much bigger in just a few months under trump and yet at the same time we can no longer find resources to feed our own citizens?
You did not answer my question, so I will pass on yours......but here is a new one...HOW can you say we are spending more than we did last year, AND AT THE SAME TIME support your legislators who today are demanding that we provide medical care to illegal aliens in our country.....they want $1.5Trillion.

You won't answer this question, so we can play question games. Your turn ro ask me one.


@AverageJoe1 said
You did not answer my question, so I will pass on yours......but here is a new one...HOW can you say we are spending more than we did last year, AND AT THE SAME TIME support your legislators who today are demanding that we provide medical care to illegal aliens in our country.....they want $1.5Trillion.

You won't answer this question, so we can play question games. Your turn ro ask me one.
"HOW can you say we are spending more than we did last year"

Because we are. And it's not a small amount more. $300 billion more and counting.

"AND AT THE SAME TIME support your legislators who today are demanding that we provide medical care to illegal aliens in our country.....they want $1.5Trillion."

You conflate two laws here. One is Obamacare. Did Republicans ever get around to providing a replacement plan? How much will that cost? The number you're looking for is the difference in the price tags. The other law is the one that requires hospitals to treat emergency room patients even if the "customer" cannot afford treatment. The healthcare system subsidizes their care by charging higher premiums for everyone else.

In other words, illegal immigrants aren't eligible for Obamacare but indirectly benefit from compassionate care laws.


@wildgrass said
Take the legalese out of it. Expedited removal was a process for immigrants who were here for a very short period (e.g. crossed the border on foot) but don't meet asylum criteria. That is reasonable and clear.

But expedited removal is now being used for immigrants who have been here awhile. One example is a diner waitress who moved here in 2000 and her Visa paperwork exp ...[text shortened]... plex and judges are often necessary. Expedited removal only works for the immediate border crossers.
Read the law again, you are confused or deliberately lying


@wildgrass said
"HOW can you say we are spending more than we did last year"

Because we are. And it's not a small amount more. $300 billion more and counting.

"AND AT THE SAME TIME support your legislators who today are demanding that we provide medical care to illegal aliens in our country.....they want $1.5Trillion."

You conflate two laws here. One is Obamacare. Did Republicans ...[text shortened]... llegal immigrants aren't eligible for Obamacare but indirectly benefit from compassionate care laws.
“. Did Republicans ever get around to providing a replacement plan? ”
Had a plan for over 200 yrs. ACA is like ukraine was, a money transfer mechanism.

AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE THAT HAS INCREASED IN PRICE 220%!

In my world that is not AFFORDABLE.

For these getting govt help their cost went up too. Only thing is with them their plan costs stayed the same, the govt payed the difference.
Money transferred from the treasury directly to insurance providers…you know those same people dems have you libs hating…too stupid to realize dems are in on the con games.

Money TRANSFERED DIRECTLY…think about it


@Mott-The-Hoople said
Read the law again, you are confused or deliberately lying
Nah. Explain how expedited removal makes sense for long term residents.


@Mott-The-Hoople said
“. Did Republicans ever get around to providing a replacement plan? ”
Had a plan for over 200 yrs. ACA is like ukraine was, a money transfer mechanism.

AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE THAT HAS INCREASED IN PRICE 220%!

In my world that is not AFFORDABLE.

For these getting govt help their cost went up too. Only thing is with them their plan costs stayed the same, the ...[text shortened]... ting…too stupid to realize dems are in on the con games.

Money TRANSFERED DIRECTLY…think about it
I get that you're not a critical thinker but you must get it at some level. Republicans say they want to replace. They've been saying it for 15 years, but have not done anything. What are they replacing it with?


@wildgrass said
I get that you're not a critical thinker but you must get it at some level. Republicans say they want to replace. They've been saying it for 15 years, but have not done anything. What are they replacing it with?
“Republicans say they want to replace. ”

Show me…I think you are lying


@wildgrass said
Nah. Explain how expedited removal makes sense for long term residents.
It’s right there in the law …

Any noncitizen who arrived at a port of entry, at any time, and is determined to be inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation or lacking proper entry documents and”

And you do know obama removed MORE people using “expedited removal” than Trump?

Hypocrisy is nothing new with you libs