Welfare Reform

No, Trump's Food Stamp Plan Wouldn't Have Cut Off AOC's Family

This is why we can't have serious conversations about government spending.


This week the Trump administration finalized new rules for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps. The plan could potentially remove as many as 688,000 people from the rolls.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) took to Twitter yesterday to talk about how the cuts could have affected a younger version of herself. When her father died in 2008, while Ocasio-Cortaz was still a student at Boston University, her family depended on food stamps to get by. If the new rules were in place then, she claimed, "we might've just starved."

But when the new rules take effect on April 1 of next year, any college student whose family is facing the same hardships that AOC did will still have access to the food stamp program. The changes being enacted will only affect able-bodied adults with no dependents.

That's not necessarily a defense of the Trump administration's SNAP eligibility changes—more on that in a moment—but rather a commentary on the sad state of The Discourse whenever transfer programs are subject to public debate. When any attempt to curtail welfare spending is met with accusations that officials are literally out to starve poor people to death, there's is no space for an actual, practical discussion about who should have access to the safety net.

It's one thing to argue that the food stamp program (or any other part of the welfare state) should not be cut. But Ocasio-Cortez only makes that position look ridiculous by engaging in hyperbole over a relatively mundane change in eligibility. And, indeed, that's what this is. Under current rules, able-bodied adults with no children can receive food stamps for up to three months once every three years, but states have the authority to waive that limitation and grant full access in counties where the unemployment rate is higher than a mere 2.5 percent. Under the new rules, states will be able to grant waivers only in counties with an unemployment rate over 6 percent or higher.

Yes, those changes are expected to eliminate SNAP benefits for about 688,000 people when they take effect. For context, there were more than 39 million people receiving SNAP benefits in 2018, a total that has fallen only slightly since the height of the last recession. And food stamps have always operated as a short-term benefit designed to ease the transition after a job loss, not a perpetual entitlement for adults who are fully capable of working and who live in areas with low unemployment.

A more rational debate over the status of SNAP benefits would recognize that no matter where you draw the arbitrary lines for eligibility, there will always be some people who don't qualify. That doesn't mean the government is trying to starve them to death.

But there can—or at least there should—be a legitimate debate over the costs and benefits of this proposed policy change. Cutting those 688,000 people off from SNAP benefits will save about $5.5 billion over five years, according to USDA officials. That's a sizeable amount of money, but it pales in comparison to the $28 billion Trump has pledged to send to farmers—via a different USDA program—to make up for the losses caused by his trade war with China.

In other words, the administration might not be condemning Americans to starve in the streets, but it can't really claim a strong commitment to fiscal conservatism, either.

Our inability to have a reasonable debate about just $5.5 billion has some sobering implications. The federal budget deficit is going to surpass $1 trillion this year. The national debt is heading towards $30 trillion by the end of the decade. And Social Security and Medicare will run a combined deficit of $100 trillion over the next 30 years.

Those are big problems that require serious solutions—solutions that will almost certainly require reductions to current transfer programs. But you can't have a serious debate if every cut is seen as a death sentence.

NEXT: New Jersey Bill Would Crack Down on Both Plastic and Paper Bags

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. From years of reading comments by Mr. Buttplug and Rev. Kirkland, I know that poor people — IOW, those most likely to be on food stamps — are the most reliable Drumpf supporters. Drumpf is so dumb he’s punishing his own base!



    1. AOC’s dad was a Trumpista?

      I haz a confoozed.

      1. “AOC’s dad was a Trumpista?”

        Well, in a country with tens of millions of registered voters, there are bound to be some exceptions. I wouldn’t expect many Republicans in AOC’s family, even when they were struggling financially.


    2. Libertarians are biting at the bit to use the exploding deficits caused by the endless tax cuts for the super rich as an excuse to gut social security and medicare. These programs are not actually funded in the budget they have their own payroll tax but never mind that. Libertarians who are all about freedom want seniors free from health care and for many the only retirement income they have, so plutocrats who loot the wealth created by those who actually work for a living won’t have to pay taxes , in amounts that wouldn’t put a dent in their opulent life style

      1. He’ll be here all week folks.

      2. where do you come up with such stupidity?

      3. Is this Bob Z guy real? I’m being serious. His point is so dull and monotonous and repetitive, it sounds like a robot using stale talking points that have never been accurate. “ Tax breaks for the rich!” “Gutting Medicare!” Edit has nothing to do with the story. I don’t understand people like this. Do they just sit and wait and troll every single site? Do they have a job? What is this a robot?

      4. “No (disaster X) won’t happen if (terrible politician Y) does or doesn’t do (Z)”.

        It seems like there’s a lot of these articles lately.

        This is why I like to mock the “everything is so terrible and unfair” mentality. It starts with the presumption of utter helplessness on the part of the poor victims if the hero do gooders don’t ride to the rescue and have the government force some people to pay for the basic needs (and a few wants) of others.

        The most ugly, cynical god complex ever.

      5. “These programs are not actually funded in the budget”

        Wait a minute, when did non discretionary spending exit the federal budget?

    3. I know that poor people — IOW, those most likely to be on food stamps — are the most reliable Drumpf supporters.

      Right. All those advocating for socialism and bigger government and more social programs as well as welfare – all GOPers. Sure.


    1. I can’t imagine how boring it must be to post the same stale joke over and over again.

      1. LOL – Now that was funny! Good to see you haven’t lost your sense of humor. I don’t care what anybody says, you’re a treasure.


          1. I laughed a little too hard at that

      2. This is the greatest OBL response ever.

      3. Joke?


        Dude, you had one job.

  3. And just look, all these years later, she’s still feeding off the government teat while providing no benefit to society. The more things change the more they stay the same.

    1. Yes, it is a shame she has become one of the permanently unproductive members of society. She had been serving a useful function when she was bartending, at leadt.

      1. You assume she was any good as one. She doesn’t deserve such benefit of the doubt.

        1. Even a bad bartender is more useful than a congresscritter.

          1. AOC real man to bang her. Possibly more Han one at a time, as I perceive her to be a multiple input girl. Certainly she thrives on rough sex.

  4. //When any attempt to curtail welfare spending is met with accusations that officials are literally out to starve poor people to death, there’s is no space for an actual, practical discussion about who should have access to the safety net.//

    The Kulaks are hoarding the produce! There are wreckers in the factories! The engineers are derailing the trains and stealing the goods!

    At the end of the day, it is the same Soviet era bullshit repackaged for a more woke, more millennial crowd.

    AOC is a screeching totalitarian that ran, and won, on socialism. Socialists need people to believe that the country is in a perpetual state of crisis and, unless drastic revolutionary action is taken, the people are literally going to starve.

    Having rational discussions with socialists is impossible, because their entire world perspective is rooted in irrationality.

  5. There’s also the problem that the primary goal of any system is to perpetuate itself and therefore government agencies have perverse incentives – if nobody at all were receiving food stamps or welfare this would be considered a victory over poverty for most of us but a disaster for the government. A successful program as far as the government’s concerned would be if absolutely everybody were on welfare and food stamps.

    Sure, the media can be expected to spin this as one more example of Orange Man Bad but the Administrative State bureaucrats really don’t give a shit who’s cutting the program, it’s an outrageous violation of the First Commandment of Bureaucracy – Thou Shalt Not Fail To Expand A Government Program – no matter who does it.

    1. Every Sept my father had to work extra long* to make sure every dollar was spent in his budget. Which really confused me because I worked for my grandfather who spent all year trying to keep spending down.

      *he always worked long hours normally, he wasn’t some government leach, just had to play that budgetary game which he hated.

      1. It’s maybe the single stupidest thing about how government budgets.

        1. Not just government.
          Seen the same thing at Home Depot HQ, which required throwing out all kinds of supplies to buy new ones, getting rid of office chairs to buy new ones, etc.
          I’d assume this is a thing in all large bureaucracies.

          1. Crazy, but yeah – having worked for Parsons Corp way back in the day, I could believe this kind of things has started to infect the private sector, too. Of course, Parsons does a lot of government contracting, and can always bill all the new stuff to a new contract. Can’t imagine why Home Depot would be doing that, though.

            1. It’s just far worse in the public sector. If you have unused funds, that let number becomes your new permanent baseline, so everyone spends the whole budget each year for fear that they might need more in the future but won’t be able to get it.

          2. It is very common.

            I know that companies selling business software often have a surge in orders in the 4th quarter precisely because their customers want to spend their budgets.

            It’s a feature of bureaucracies.

      2. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a story about a middle school janitor (ahem, custodial engineer), who upon discovering that he had not used his (ahem, or hers, or non-binary humans) yearly budget for broken window repair, decided to sneak in at night and break a few to ensure that next years budget is not reduced.

        Haha. Public “servants” are awesome.

        1. What a bastiat!

  6. “we might’ve just starved.”

    OK, so what’s the down side?

  7. Wheres De Opressor, aka baby Jeffrey, to say it isnt fair to call out AOC for her stupidity like in the roundup thread.

    1. Off lying about being a soldier, most likely.

    2. checking for russians under his bed

    3. In your head, dude. That’s the only place he does stuff like that.

      I mean, I don’t think he’s the most brilliant commenter ever, but I’ve never seen any reason to believe that he is any kind of lefty or socialist.

      1. Sometimes I forget how much of an idiot you are.

        1. Yeah, I’m the idiot. Not the people who obsessively stalk certain commenters just so they can be assholes. That’s what smart people do.

          1. Cry more faggot.

            1. Why would you think that I’m crying? You people are fucking hilarious in your commitment to being shitty to people. I really don’t understand it. I’m honestly interested in your motivations, if it goes beyond simply taking pleasure in being a dick.

              1. It’s your tears faggot. Now cry more

                1. You cry more, dumbass.

              2. Yeah, every time I start to think that Trump might not be all bad, these guys are here to remind me why I think his supporters are such shitty people, and he should be opposed simply for representing them.

          2. Not the people who obsessively stalk certain commenters just so they can be assholes

            Hey drama mama, OBL wants a word with you.

            1. Lol hoist upon his own retard lololol

                1. that we know you have this pathetic need to say something anything to save a little face and get the last word but we were talking about you not to you

                  1. You’re right, I shouldn’t waste my effort on people who are clearly deranged sociopaths not interested in communicating or engaging with anyone.

          3. No Zeb, just because you receive a restraining order every time you talk to someone that doesn’t mean having a conversation is stalking.

            1. Insults and berating is not having a conversation. Get a grip. At least most of the asshole crew owns up to the fact that they are just being assholes.

              1. Hey look at the crybaby faggot defining things for other people

                Cry more faggot

            2. See, this is exactly the kind of shit I mean. You could have said “hey Zeb, you are way off, chemjeff really is a lefty dumbass, here’s something he said just the other day…”
              But instead you go right for a gratuitous insult.

              1. Stop stalking me asshole.

                1. He can’t control himself when he’s upset, like he obviously is because he double posted like a crybaby faggot.

              2. See, this is exactly the kind of shit I mean, you could have just said “WAAAAAAAA LEAVE JEFF ALONE!!!” like the cry baby faggot you are.

    4. Did you see where he tried to claim he was career SF in the comments to the Gallagher pardon article? That kid needs a severe beating.

      I think it would be hilarious to turn some enraged chimpanzees loose on him.

  8. Am I going to have to be the asshole who points that even in AOC’s version of the story she wasn’t actually going to starve but was just going to have to (gasp!) get a job and maybe defer the degree from Boston U?

    1. Her degree was worthless anyways. She became a bartender.

      1. Then a Socialist representative.

      2. How dare you? That was an *Econ* degree!

        1. Yeah, like, she’s all smart n’ stuff! Like, she totally knows economies and money things.

        2. Wait, wait, wait – I knew she had a degree, but it can’t possibly be in economics, she’s a goddamned socialist! Isn’t Boston College a private institution, how could they let this happen?

          Oh, Boston University, I see. Well, carry on.

          1. I was in a grad program in Econ at BU around six years before she was there, and the dept. was not generally leftist. I think the profs from other departments may have gotten to her.

      3. More than that, actually. She used her connections to the Kirsten Gillibrand circle to start up a book publishing company that went under rather quick, which was the whole reason she had to become a bartender in the first place.

        To be fair, at least she got a job instead of going on the dole, but that’s also a mark of someone with a legitimate work ethic. So it’s not really a surprise that she got into politics.

    2. In our modern civilized era it’s considered reprehensible to suggest that people have to set priorities in life and make choices. The modern thinking is that you should be able to have anything you want, right fucking now, without working for it or making any sacrifices.

    3. That’s quite insensitive of you to remark that she could have made different choice sin her life.

        1. love your typo
          (cannot post this as a reply to A Thinking Mind)

      1. If only she were an illegal immigrant, then she could be absolved of all personal responsibility

        1. Or a woman…

    4. Like a chick with tits like her’s would ever have to buy a meal.

      1. I had never really thought about this but you may be on to something.

        NSFW link: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=aoc+tits

  9. “In other words, the administration might not be condemning Americans to starve in the streets, but it can’t really claim a strong commitment to fiscal conservatism, either.”

    It is weird they used exactly 2 examples and only 2 to make this claim. Also the fact that congress has passed veto proof appropriations limits what the executive can actually do. One would think a real journalist would analyze the totality of what spending trump is authorized to maintain on order to make the above statement.

    1. “if you don’t like it here, you can leave”

      1. I’ve basically been saying that to Pedo Jeffy here for years, yet the little shitweasel child rape enthusiast is still here.

    2. “journalist”

      To be sure, all stories that point out the malfeasance of the left have to feature orange man bad, even when they are not at all related to the discussion.

    3. So, can it claim a strong commitment to fiscal conservatism?

  10. solutions that will almost certainly require reductions to current transfer programs

    And in order to Reason to be taken as a serious source of libertarian thought they will almost certainly have to start espousing some.

    There, similar analysis for you.

    Reason opposed any reform of Obamacare short of complete repeal–which was by far the least likely thing to happen– and even then they argued that the US needs a government sponsored healthcare policy. Once Reason starts applying the same pragmatic incrementalism they love so much on the social side to the fiscal side, you’ll know they actually care about fiscal matters. Until then it’s a smoke screen to allow them to push the social issues that they actually care about.

    1. I don’t think that’s really a reasonable characterization of what Reason had to say about entitlements and Obamacare.
      It is possible to discuss policy and its implications without taking a position on the issue. And I think that’s a lot of what Reason does with the healthcare stuff.

      1. And what your equivocating retard ass thinks matters because…?

        1. Same reason why what all the other retards think matters, I guess. No fucking reason. Nothing anyone posts here matters, does it?

          Your opinion of my comment matters why, again?

          Do you even think I’m wrong, or do you just like the work “equivocating” a lot?

            1. Now you’re just gilding the lilly idiot.

              1. And who wouldn’t want a gilded lily?

              2. And I’d really like to know if you think I’m wrong.

  11. no matter where you draw the arbitrary lines for eligibility, there will always be some people who don’t qualify.

    Nuh-uh. Qualify *everybody*.

    *** looks at John Yang ***

  12. Ohhh, we’re impeaching because he’s going to get re-elected…

    “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected. … We must impeach him.”

    1. Does impeachment disqualify you from office in the future? Or could Trump run anyway even if he’s removed from office.
      That would be awesomely funny if he got removed and then immediately elected again.

      1. Denial of future office is an option of the Senate sentence, but not required.
        But there has to be a guilty verdict first.

  13. If the new rules were in place then, she claimed, “we might’ve just starved.”

    Waiting for the down side here…

  14. “The changes being enacted will only affect able-bodied adults with no dependents.”

    I discussed this at length the other day in Daily Roundup.

    Suffice it to say that Trump’s cuts may only impact able bodied adults with no dependents, but I support the changes anyway.

    We can cut the rest off later.

    1. Extra Credit: When was the last time a president fought to cut a social spending program?

      1. Bill Clinton, the End of Welfare As We Know It?

        1. Gingrich had to shut the government down to get him to agree to that. That was over President Clinton’s objections and against his will.

          Far as I can tell, the last time a president fought to slash a social spending program was never.

          It’s supposedly political suicide.

  15. “No, Trump’s Food Stamp Plan Wouldn’t Have Cut Off AOC’s Family”

    Well, I can still like it.

  16. AOC, like most politicians, is either a total retard or a lying cunt (or both). Not news.

    1. Don’t sell her short. She’s an exceptional lying idiot, even for a politician.

  17. If the new rules were in place then, she claimed, “we might’ve just starved.”

    Example of someone who likes to paint the picture that no one has agency without government. Get a job? All family for help? Visit the local food bank? Get a tinder profile? Switch from Boston College to community college?

    1. To resurrect a dumb catchphrase from the ’90s: yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my but.

  18. In Maine, when they required able-bodied single adults to work, get job training, or perform 26 hours of community service a month, 80% of those bums (yes, BUMS) decided not to receive their food stamp welfare rather than comply.

    That stunning fiscal success upsets progressives. Which says a lot.

  19. Another cant from The Kunt ( she’s earned her own epithet.) Much in the vein of one of Ayn Rand’s bumptious looters, AOC can always be counted on to inveigh ad nauseam against the folks who foot the bill.

    She’s the darkest of dark amidst the children of the dark. Were her complaints grounded on even a film of reality, wherein the poor and hungry are suddenly dispossessed of their bread and milk, for example, we could understand her lament, artificial as it always is.

    But, no. Like her white doppelgänger Liz Warren, aka, Pocahontas-not to mention every other SJW-every tale of woe is a caricature of truth and an ideological munition.

  20. As I understand it, the 700,000 will lose their SNAP benefits next spring IF they don’t get a job, OR THEY DON’T perform 20 hours of community service a month. You know — largely useless work like raking leaves or picking up trash. Seems no one notices this latter community service option IN THE REGULATION!

    Does anyone think that all 700,000 will choose to do neither?
    Moreover, this requirement doesn’t apply to pregnant women, or adults with minor children. It doesn’t apply to people 50 years or older. And it doesn’t include those with a “disability,” whatever that is.

    1. Yes, it is a minor change in the hopes of chasing some few parasites off the welfare rolls, at best.

  21. There are currently over 36,400,000 people gobbling down SNAP benefits.

    This reform affects 700,000 of these SNAP recipients — just 1.9% of all food stamp recipients.

  22. I suspect that closer analysis will show that most of these 700,000 SNAP recipients ARE working — off the books. Millions of Americans work for cash — including (but not limited to) drug dealers, prostitutes, burglars, robbers, professional gamblers — and many, many others.

  23. No, Trump’s Food Stamp Plan Wouldn’t Have Cut Off AOC’s Family

    Sounds like Trump’s new rules aren’t strict enough.

  24. The [D] party elected a liability case to congress?!?!?! What in the world are these people thinking… They can’t even manage their own life or financial affairs but somehow are gifted enough to run the nation??

    The left is so retarded.

  25. The fact that AOC is incapable of honest arguments is not a headline.

  26. At first I wondered if AOC simply failed to read the law to see what the changes to the SNAP plan were before commenting. Then I realized that, as ALL Democrats do, she immediately blurted out whatever comments would put the President in the worst light – never mind that there is not a grain of truth to what they are saying. AOC was on “safe ground” in expecting few of any political persuasion to check the actual facts. Of course, as soon as the shrill voices of CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the Leftist Media chime in the public will never know they have been lied to – except for those who get the “fair & balanced” news.

  27. Most people in US are against Donald Trump. I don’t understand the reason.

    1. No, just most people in the media and on social networks.

      1. Right – Like didn’t “they” say “most people in the US” wouldn’t vote for Donald Trump even while he won the first election….

  28. No, Trump’s Food Stamp Plan Wouldn’t Have Cut Off AOC’s Family

    What a shame. She might have turned out a decent person if it had.

    1. “She might” – I doubt it; one of the biggest strengths of left-leaning people is the ability to BLAME someone else for everything they bring upon themselves.

  29. “…I was a student. If this happened then, we might’ve just starved…”

    Was there a down-side?

  30. I’m the Treasurer of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco. Reason is a propaganda rag designed to divide and conquor – in other words, provoke outrage. Why is everyone bickering over the food stamp program when we do nothing about the $21 Trillion dollars unaccounted for at the Pentagon and the HUD?

    1. Seriously, what course of action is likely to help? Neither you nor me are going to get Di Fi or Pelosi interested.
      Reason hasn’t managed to accomplish much of anything for years, outside of Robbie rattling the snowflake cage.
      Perhaps CATO; has anyone tried that route?

  31. I think the reaction is reflexive because there has been a real effort to vilify and pile on poor people. This creates a tendency to reflexively defend programs designed to help the poor. As the article points out subsidies to farmer to offset the tariffs are not discussed only assistance to the poor. We talked about welfare reform in the 1990s and thought we had worked that all out, now we have people asking for more from the poor. Here’s an idea. Let start by talks about cutting program that helped the richest Americans for a while and then work down to the programs for the poorest.

    1. “I think the reaction is reflexive because there has been a real effort to vilify and pile on poor people.”

      Yes, the entire congress is full of critters trying to cut welfare. I noticed that also.

    2. I find it humorous how minds pretend that “poor people” are inherently dismissed of all individual responsibility of being or becoming “poor” as if it was an inalienable characteristic trait or something (like the color of ones skin).

      In fair markets – wealth is a reflection of a persons add-value to/for society. There just isn’t a lot of “poor” people around creating, offering service, or building what society as a whole needs, wants or demands. In fact it seems most who deliver exactly what others need/want tend to be closer to the top 10%.

      However, there is a lot of “poor” people refusing to “add-value” while simultaneously demanding NOT to be “poor”.

      And also a lot of “poor” people generated from socialistic government systems that have robbed their “add-value” blind essentially turning “successful” (add-value) into a slavery occupation and turning “add-value” into a curse of nanny-state laws and threats instead of a blessing. ( Say like our healthcare system ).

      1. I would suggest that your attitude that “poor” people are of little value is the reason there is reflexive response anytime there is talk about cutting assistance to the poor. I see little point in discussing how to make assistance better, more efficient and less costly if the starting point is we are helping the undeserving. I frequently hear Libertarians talk about a willingness to help the “truly needy”. The problem comes when they don’t believe anyone is truly needy.

        1. Exactly how do you find it so easy to pretend gun-enforced law = “willingness”??!!??!!

          I know plenty of people who ‘truly need’ things and I have “willingness” to assist and help them MOSTLY because their claimed “needs” really are “true” and not some spoiled cry baby pretending they need anything they can get their hands on.

          Do you really think that just because the federal government didn’t threatening me with their gun-enforced laws to hand over my assistance that it’s not really a “willingness” to help others?????

          NO ONE with a straight face can pretend 30% of total population are ‘truly needy’ (i.e. welfare recipients in any current program) short of looking at it for what it is — “Hey, I got needs too!!!” — “The need to STEAL from OTHER PEOPLE without any consequences.”

          There’s a rather distinct line between thievery and helping – sadly; many like to pretend there is no line at all.

          1. And the REAL root of the problem lies in “pretend there is no line at all” — by use of higher more ABSTRACT level of 3rd party governments (like the federal instead of the City/County/State).

            The ‘TRULY needy’ doesn’t need nor deserve a 3rd party thief… They can sit among their peers and “beg” for “assistance” and be extremely THANKFUL for what their peers WILLINGLY give them.

            Most ‘truly needy’ claims today seem to pretend “beggars” can be ungrateful “choosers” by 3rd party (Upper-Level GOV) thievery and/or enslavement.

        2. “…The problem comes when they don’t believe anyone is truly needy.”


          1. No, the problem is that fools like you believe that EVERYONE is truly needy.

            And that only government can solve that bottomless “need.”

        3. No, the problem is that fools like you believe that EVERYONE is truly needy.

          And that only government can solve that bottomless “need.”

  32. I wonder how true her claim is.

    It’s not like she’s a bastion of honesty.

    After all, she’s an illiberal, illiterate ignoramus.

  33. No, Eric.

    This is not why we can’t have serious discussions about spending.

    To have such a discussion presumes that the people you are talking with are operating in good faith.

    Read the comment thread. Do you imagine that the who favor these cuts, and the politicians they support, are interested in a good faith discussion of the facts of this spending, or simply vilifying food stamp recipients?

    1. “…Read the comment thread. Do you imagine that the who favor these cuts, and the politicians they support, are interested in a good faith discussion of the facts of this spending, or simply vilifying food stamp recipients?”

      Did you have a point other than signalling you are more than happy to spend other people’s money to make YOU feel good?
      The crying towels for whiners are off to the left; fuck off, slaver.

      1. +10000000000

  34. I q­ui­­­t wo­­­rk­­­­ing m­­­y de­­s­k jo­­­b an­­d n­­o­w,,,I ‘m m­­a­­k­­i­­n­­g $­­9­­7/H­­r w­­o­­r­­k­­i­­n­­g f­­r­­o­­m h­­o­­m­­e b­­y d­­o­­i­­n­­g t­­h­­i­­s s­­i­­m­­p­­l­­e o­­n­­l­­i­­n­­e h­­o­­m­­e j­­o­­b­­z.i e­­a­­r­­n $15 ­­t­­h­­o­­u­­s­­a­­n­­d­­s a m­­o­­n­­t­­h b­­y w­­o­­r­­k­­i­­n­­g o­­n­­l­­i­­n­­e 3 H­­o­­u­­r p­­a­­r d­­a­­y.i r­­e­­c­­o­­m­­m­­e­­nd­­e­­d y­­o­­u t­­r­­y i­­t.y­­o­­u w­­i­­l­­l l­­o­­s­­e n­­o­­t­­h­­i­­n­­g.j­­u­­s­­t t­­r­­y i­­t o­­u­­t o­­n t­­h­­e f­­o­­l­­l­­o­­w­­i­­n­­g w­­e­­b­­s­­i­­t­­e a­­n­­d e­­a­­r­­n d­­a­­i­­l­­y…g­­­o t­­­o t­­­hi­­­s si­­­te ho­­­me media tech t­­­a­­­b f­­­or m­­­or­­­e d­­­et­­­a­­­il thank you………. http://www.9Klife.com

  35. “All these freebies or the rich and cuts for the poor”

    Where do we get the revenues to pay for things like food stamps again?

    People distrust the elites to a certain point, but the left’s general antipathy to the wealthy will eventually turn off the center left not residing in the antifa tier. You can’t sustain a population of 380 mil by operating the economy like a commune, where people just sort of live according to the needs of the society so no one can be poor.

    There are legions in the left that would celebrate Amazon and tech businesses leaving a state and replaced by 20 million immigrants and refugees. Because they think immigrants pay trillions of dollars in taxes and diversity is a default resource.

    The democrats are batcrap insane. Bernie Sanders says two companies should make all the soaps and deodorants. They’ll crash the economy within half a generation. And they talk out of their butts like republicans who feigned fiscal conservatism in the tea party era. All the frontrunners are white, and the one gay guy rang bells for the salvation army.

  36. Reason opposed any reform of Obamacare short of complete repeal–which was by far the least likely thing to happen– mynordstrom employee portal and even then they argued that the US needs a government sponsored healthcare policy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.