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
x

OWNED!!!!

The Feed stamp program, a part the Department
Agriculture, is pleased be distributing the
greatest amount at food stamps ever.
Meanwhile, the Park Service, which is also part
the Department of Agriculture, asks us tn
because the animals may grew dependent
and not learn take care for themselves.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1238
Views: 42961
Favorited: 98
Submitted: 11/15/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to jefflsu submit to reddit

Comments(136):

[ 136 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
+63
#20 - imanorphan **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#92 - mainstreamed (11/16/2012) [-]
the biggest of  facepalms
the biggest of facepalms
User avatar #56 - ilikearabs (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....
#51 - rafikithenig (11/16/2012) [-]
I've been denied foodstamps three times now. What government is this and how can i join?
#35 to #28 - mikepetru (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.
User avatar #38 to #35 - wersand (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 (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.
User avatar #101 to #93 - konages (11/16/2012) [-]
both giving food to bears and people teaches them they don't have to work for **** ...
#108 to #101 - anonomysmonkey (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?
User avatar #110 to #108 - konages (11/16/2012) [-]
some people choose to not to work and get free money instead of working
#111 to #110 - anonomysmonkey (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?
User avatar #113 to #111 - konages (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 (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.
User avatar #116 to #115 - konages (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 (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.
User avatar #123 to #117 - konages (11/16/2012) [-]
all those people get drug tested before they get hired
#127 to #123 - anonomysmonkey (11/16/2012) [-]
I know for a fact that school teachers and students getting financial aid don't.
User avatar #133 to #127 - konages (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 (11/16/2012) [-]
Also, comparing poor people to animals FTW ಠ_ಠ
#75 - drimsical (11/16/2012) [-]
this post made no sense to me at all
either im retarded
or i dont understand america at all
-3
#76 to #75 - ragged has deleted their comment [-]
#71 - kingpongthedon (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.
User avatar #99 to #71 - cancerousiguana (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 (11/15/2012) [-]
Oh the irony
#21 to #13 - cactaur (11/15/2012) [-]
heh- iron e
#80 - kerplunking (11/16/2012) [-]
Oh great, it's conservatard opinion time.
Oh great, it's conservatard opinion time.
#91 to #80 - jedic (11/16/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#95 - SubjectThree (11/16/2012) [-]
"Yeah, God forbid animals get hooked on human stuff. They'd probably use it better,anyway."
#106 to #95 - qwertycat (11/16/2012) [-]
I know right? And they are OBVIOUSLY alive today only because they ate your left-over hamburgers from the day they were born until now...

It's not like animals got to survive this long from using their animal skills.

User avatar #14 - lamarsmithgot (11/15/2012) [-]
bears don't go to war overseas and come back with crippling medical problems.
User avatar #25 to #14 - sxespanky (11/15/2012) [-]
bears also dont live off of welfare and buy shining rimms for their brand new SUV
User avatar #34 to #25 - helenwheels (11/15/2012) [-]
Name me one person on welfare you know who has a brand new SUV.
Just name me one.
User avatar #52 to #34 - dsand (11/16/2012) [-]
Tyrone.
User avatar #138 to #34 - sxespanky (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.
#17 to #14 - daddycool (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?
#104 - kingpongthedon (11/16/2012) [-]
Personal story: My parents owned there own business. They made good money and we all lived comfortably. One day, my mom notices a weird growth in her breast. She goes to the doctor and they say not to worry about it, she's too young to get cancer, it's probably a cyst or something. So she doesn't worry about it. Next year, she still has the lump, doctors say the same thing. Next year she goes to the doctor and, total shocker, she has stage 4 breast cancer. Next thing we know, we're drowning in bills, as insurance refuses to pay for treatment. My mom is out of commission for over a year and my dad spends his time looking after her, rarely working as he has to make sure she gets to her constant appointments. All income goes away. Now for added effect, it's 2008 and we just had a financial collapse.

At this point, I was almost seventeen and seriously considering dropping out of school. Not because I wanted to, I was an A student, but because my family literally could not afford to keep me out of the workforce. However, we got government assistance. To get full benefits, I had to stay in school. And that's how it would stay until I graduated high school. But then what? Well, fortunately I was able to stay focused on my education and maintain a 4+ GPA and get a ton of scholarship money. But it was still only about 3/4 of tuition, and there doesn't seem to be any school who will take 3/4 tuition. Fortunately the government stepped in again and since we were below that line, they subsidized my education again allowing me to get into one of the top schools in the Southeast, where I'm doing quite well.

Realistically, without government assistance, I'd be dealing coke right now. It's easy money and a lot of it. Plus I already knew most of the dealers in my town and could get started in hours. At least until I got caught and go to prison where I cost even more to support.

Most people's story is much closer to this than a new source for rims.
#10 - justacritic (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)
User avatar #15 to #10 - justanotherzombie (11/15/2012) [-]
I am Canadian, What is a food stamp exactly?
User avatar #26 to #15 - sxespanky (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.
User avatar #85 to #15 - cancerousiguana (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)
#16 to #10 - anon (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 (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 (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 (11/15/2012) [-]
Why prioritize when you can just get free money from the government?
#11 - anon (11/15/2012) [-]
The National Park Service is actually part of the Dept. of the Interior. Now you Know.
User avatar #37 - monkee (11/15/2012) [-]
Maybe it's because I grew up in a household run by benefits, but I do see them as a beneficial part of society. My little brother is severely disabled, and my mother has been a single mother since I was 9. She cares for him, and claims off the government to fund his additional support needs. We never received a penny from our deadbeat dad. Yet she still feels this shame when she calls herself a stay-at-home carer, because people judge her. She has a mental health nursing degree but can't use it because of her commitment to my younger brother. I had to be selfish for my own future and I'm at university just now, but not a day goes by where I don't feel guilty for leaving her. Did we deserve to be cut off because we weren't contributing anything then?
User avatar #41 to #37 - illegalartist (11/15/2012) [-]
I have a similar story. In fact, my mom is also an RN for mental health...
User avatar #44 to #37 - blacksmithgu (11/15/2012) [-]
I believe the point here is not to hurt those who actually need the support, but rather the maybe 3-4% (?) of Americans who live SOLELY on Welfare and have done so for a long period of time without giving anything back - basically sapping tax money.

The people who need it should get it, and those who are just too lazy to work should not.
User avatar #19 - gorginhanson (11/15/2012) [-]
The only difference is that people don't know how to live off the land.
User avatar #3 - icedmantwo (11/15/2012) [-]
are you perhaps implying that a low income family has =/< intelligence than the average deer?
User avatar #54 to #3 - ManicalMayhem (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 (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!!!
User avatar #5 to #4 - monkeyyninja (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 (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.
User avatar #33 to #32 - monkeyyninja (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.
User avatar #61 to #32 - ManicalMayhem (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.
User avatar #8 to #5 - icedmantwo (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
User avatar #46 to #5 - Chuckaholic (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.
#12 - anon (11/15/2012) [-]
Even more ironic. That bear is black.
#83 - wishanonscouldpost (11/16/2012) [-]
Parks don't want you to feed animals because it attracts them to areas where humans are. Not because they become dependent on humans.

Food stamps are to help poor people eat. Better for the economy to have people alive spending money on other stuff, then have people die and not spend money on anything.
User avatar #87 to #83 - Yardie (11/16/2012) [-]
Somebody doesn't know how the economy works.

Spending doesn't = economy

production = economy

Spending helps production, but only if the spending is going towards domestic products, which most of the time it doesn't. Look at all the poor people who shop at Walmart.
#94 to #87 - wishanonscouldpost (11/16/2012) [-]
Just because companies in the US import some of their products, it doesn't mean it doesn't help the American economy. The money still goes to the American company. Production in other countries is still funded by the company you are giving money to.
[ 136 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)