OWNED!!!!. . The Feed stamp program, a part the Department Agriculture, is pleased be distributing the greatest amount at food stamps ever. Meanwhile, the Park  ironic funny yolo Swag welfare
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (136)
[ 136 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
51 comments displayed.
#20 - imanorphan **User deleted account**
+63
has deleted their comment [-]
#14 - lamarsmithgot
Reply +20
(11/15/2012) [-]
bears don't go to war overseas and come back with crippling medical problems.
#25 to #14 - sxespanky
Reply -8
(11/15/2012) [-]
bears also dont live off of welfare and buy shining rimms for their brand new SUV
#34 to #25 - helenwheels
Reply +6
(11/15/2012) [-]
Name me one person on welfare you know who has a brand new SUV.
Just name me one.
#52 to #34 - dsand
Reply +7
(11/16/2012) [-]
Tyrone.
#138 to #34 - sxespanky
Reply 0
(11/17/2012) [-]
someone my mom works with. government gave them a house - GAVE THEM ,food stamps. and they sell drugs on the side and got a brand new suv with spinners.
#24 to #14 - seankely
Reply +1
(11/15/2012) [-]
#17 to #14 - daddycool
Reply +27
(11/15/2012) [-]
They might.

Has anyone ever tried yelling at them a lot, forcing them to do push ups, and calling them various euphemisms for homosexual?
#3 - icedmantwo
Reply +10
(11/15/2012) [-]
are you perhaps implying that a low income family has =/< intelligence than the average deer?
#54 to #3 - ManicalMayhem
Reply -2
(11/16/2012) [-]
It isn't implying intelligence in any way, it actually is saying that based in instinct is that people who are given things for nothing will continue to want things for nothing. it's not intelligence... it's natural instinct which is the same for animals as it is people.
#4 to #3 - jefflsu [OP]
Reply +16
(11/15/2012) [-]
PRECISELY! Look i'm 20 live out on my own since i was 18. Having said that I in no way shape or form have a at best descent income. I still stand on my own feet without sucking on uncle sam's tit. SHAQUEESA WITH HER 6 BABIES THAT I"M PAYING FOR OUT MY TAXES ARE AS USEFULL AS TITS ON A BULL AND SHOULD STARVE NOW CAN I GET AN AMEN!!!
#5 to #4 - monkeyyninja
Reply +15
(11/15/2012) [-]
**** yes, amen! The most ANY welfare system should do is to provide [very] short term aid; a system that can be exploited to the point that baby factory **** head cunts can make more money milking the system than someone who works 50 hours a week is broken.
#32 to #5 - stripeygreenhat
Reply +3
(11/15/2012) [-]
But in the process of punishing the irresponsible mom you also punish her children. Unfortunately, a lot of children would starve if welfare was suddenly cut off.

That is to say, I think welfare should be improved/reformed to diminish the problem but still exist.
#33 to #32 - monkeyyninja
Reply +2
(11/15/2012) [-]
I said nothing of punishing them; there are far too many private/local welfare/aid programs in place for anyone in that situation to actually starve, and as I said, the welfare systems that should be in place should be short term (more of a helping hand towards self-sufficiency). However, a figurative slap in the face of those people would be beneficial for everyone.
#61 to #32 - ManicalMayhem
Reply 0
(11/16/2012) [-]
Charge the irresponsible mother with Neglect if the child is unhealthy, or harmed in any way, and give the child a foster home. Because if you harm or injure a life in any way by not feeding them is still illegal. Welfare does need to end completely even if you have a little bit of welfare people will still "live off of it" and still neglect the children.

the best help someone can get is no help, cause then they will be forced to find a way to produce on their own.
#46 to #5 - Chuckaholic
Reply -3
(11/16/2012) [-]
Make welfare enough so that people can have water, food, electricity and enough basic necessities to survive in the western world. If you want to lower the welfare problem make minimum wage higher, by a fair margin, to incentivate people to get jobs. It's a possibility.
#8 to #5 - icedmantwo
Reply -5
(11/15/2012) [-]
so you are then say that we should increase sex ed so that people know how to properly have safe sex and not have a ton of kids then, with affordable abortions within x days of pregnancy
#23 to #8 - dedaluminus
Reply +1
(11/15/2012) [-]
#28 - wersand
Reply +12
(11/15/2012) [-]
#35 to #28 - mikepetru ONLINE
Reply 0
(11/15/2012) [-]
but Jesus fed people through his miracles of his own free will and at no one else's expense. He didn't steal food and wealth from one person to give to another.
#38 to #35 - wersand
Reply +3
(11/15/2012) [-]
He took the bread and fish from the little boy, although you're right it wasn't against his will, the little boy still sacrificed.
Then you get to the following about taxes, "give onto Ceasar what is Ceasar's." God's name may be on the dollar, but it's still governmental wealth. So true Christian's should willingly give it away, no matter how much the government is asking for.
#93 - anonomysmonkey
Reply +10
(11/16/2012) [-]
While this is an interesting remark, the information used is false. The Park Service is not a part of the Department of Agriculture (does that  even sound correct?). You can easily look up the Park Services website and see that it's a part of the Department of the Interior.    
Also people on wellfare need that money to survive so it helps them. Bears do just fine on their own and giving them free food to the point where they become dependent would only kill them in the end.    
   
   
   
So **** you.
While this is an interesting remark, the information used is false. The Park Service is not a part of the Department of Agriculture (does that even sound correct?). You can easily look up the Park Services website and see that it's a part of the Department of the Interior.
Also people on wellfare need that money to survive so it helps them. Bears do just fine on their own and giving them free food to the point where they become dependent would only kill them in the end.



So **** you.
#101 to #93 - konages
Reply -2
(11/16/2012) [-]
both giving food to bears and people teaches them they don't have to work for ****...
#108 to #101 - anonomysmonkey
Reply -1
(11/16/2012) [-]
Yeah but it's the lesser of two evils: Risk starting a trend of dependence or letting people die of starvation. Also people can think for themselves. Would you rather work and live a normal quality of life or do drugs all day get food stamps?
#110 to #108 - konages
Reply -1
(11/16/2012) [-]
some people choose to not to work and get free money instead of working
#111 to #110 - anonomysmonkey
Reply 0
(11/16/2012) [-]
Yeah but that's illegal to scam the government like that. Not much else the government can do but arrest them when caught.
Some people also sell drugs, making drug cartels stronger and stronger and taking money out of the economy and into the black market.... **** happens man. What are you gonna do?
#113 to #111 - konages
Reply -1
(11/16/2012) [-]
not give free money to drug users (i.e. drug test welfare recipients). BTW its not illegal to collect welfare even if you're not looking for a job in most states.
#115 to #113 - anonomysmonkey
Reply 0
(11/16/2012) [-]
Go ahead and drug test the 46 million people a month receiving food stamps. Maybe we should just drug test everybody. That way we can be sure we're enforcing our drug policy well enough. Nobody should have to endure the evil temptation and consequences of narcotics.
#116 to #115 - konages
Reply 0
(11/16/2012) [-]
nah we just need to test the ones getting free money so we can make sure government money isn't going towards drugs. everyone else is protected by the 4th amendment
#117 to #116 - anonomysmonkey
Reply 0
(11/16/2012) [-]
Let's also drug test all the people payed by the government. I mean they could also spend that money on drugs. Let's also drug test public school teachers before they get their pay checks to make sure that money isn't spent on drugs. Maybe we should also drug test students who get grants to make sure they don't spend their money on drugs. Maybe the fourth amendment just shouldn't apply to anybody getting government funds.
#123 to #117 - konages
Reply 0
(11/16/2012) [-]
all those people get drug tested before they get hired
#127 to #123 - anonomysmonkey
Reply 0
(11/16/2012) [-]
I know for a fact that school teachers and students getting financial aid don't.
#133 to #127 - konages
Reply 0
(11/16/2012) [-]
students it depends on the state, every state drug tests teachers before they are hired. Some are even randomly tested during their tenure, depending on the district
#103 to #93 - anonomysmonkey
Reply 0
(11/16/2012) [-]
Also, comparing poor people to animals FTW ಠ_ಠ
#92 - mainstreamed
Reply +10
(11/16/2012) [-]
the biggest of  facepalms
the biggest of facepalms
#71 - kingpongthedon
Reply +9
(11/16/2012) [-]
Does anybody here complaining about welfare actually know the statistics? Because if you look at them, you'll see that the vast majority (>90%) are on for less than 2 years as it is VERY difficult to get any benefits while in good health for any length of time. And the majority of the remaining ten percent are facing debilitating illnesses. All told, less than one in 25 people on welfare could be said to be abusing the system. Compare this to the costs associated with white collar crimes, such as tax evasion, and you'll see it's a much smaller problem than you think it is.
#99 to #71 - cancerousiguana
Reply +1
(11/16/2012) [-]
Nah, dude, I heard all about it from Rush Limbaugh. Everybody (100%) on foodstamps/welfare is a lazy pot smoker who wants to have abortions all day, and it's costing hard-working white christians to pay for it, that's why they voted in the communist muslim socialist Hitler for President.

It's like you don't even know the facts or something.
#13 - rawrbowwow
Reply +9
(11/15/2012) [-]
Oh the irony
#21 to #13 - cactaur
Reply +4
(11/15/2012) [-]
heh- iron e
#22 to #21 - rawrbowwow
Reply +8
(11/15/2012) [-]
#47 to #22 - swatlowkey
Reply +1
(11/16/2012) [-]
#56 - ilikearabs
Reply +8
(11/16/2012) [-]
some people are born with certain perks and others are born with unfortunate circumstances (poor parents, drunks and ****)... i believe these people should be givin the privilege of food stamps...notice how i said privilege. i believe that food stamps should be taken away if the reverser of said food staps is on drugs or has been committing crimes....
#10 - justacritic
Reply +8
(11/15/2012) [-]
But I receive food stamps and have a job. I just can't afford all of my bills st the end of the month. (O_o)
#15 to #10 - justanotherzombie
Reply 0
(11/15/2012) [-]
I am Canadian, What is a food stamp exactly?
#85 to #15 - cancerousiguana
Reply 0
(11/16/2012) [-]
It's basically a special card loaded with money that they give you, and it can only be spent on food (you have to go to certain stores to use it, not everywhere takes it)
#124 to #85 - justanotherzombie
Reply 0
(11/16/2012) [-]
Oh wow
#26 to #15 - sxespanky
Reply -4
(11/15/2012) [-]
when poor folk make babies, dont get jobs, but get an ass load of money from the government so they never have to work ever again.
#16 to #10 - anon
Reply 0
(11/15/2012) [-]
Do you have cable/satellite TV?
Are you using your computer to access the internet at your house?
lrn2priorities
#42 to #16 - underaserpentsun
Reply +3
(11/15/2012) [-]
oh so now we are denying first world citizens the right to information, so that they don't even have a chance to educate themselves or form political opinions? brilliant....

meanwhile, in europe, several countries have recognized internet acces as a human right and the government provides free access wherever it is needed.
#134 to #42 - daddycool
Reply 0
(11/16/2012) [-]
People in America have no "right to information." This is specifically because of what a right is and is not in America.

In America, a right is something you're born with. The right to speak freely, the right to own property, the right to assemble. These are things you can do with what you're given upon birth. However, you do not have a right to a commodity(information, food, healthcare, for example). That would require an imposition upon someone else as they would have to furnish it for you. A "natural born right" does not incur a cost upon anyone else, while a right to a commodity would.

Here's a longer(and better) explanation by Bill Whittle(though it's on the subject of healthcare, as opposed to information). www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S9dwP-fV3o&feature=plcp
#18 to #16 - daddycool
Reply -3
(11/15/2012) [-]
Why prioritize when you can just get free money from the government?