Pat Oliphant for June 09, 2011

Funny if it weren’t true!

What to do? Mind your own business and get the hell out!

And get us some of that infrastructure and health care system using the money we’re spending there!

Ooops, too much blood and treasure, my, my, just look at the clock, why it IS time to go and…gee, if you don’t care then why should we?…..forget that wee point did we?Actually the poppy money should cover your expenses for tea, camels and all that cloth for veils.

Like the little bird says, “Let the Taliban do it.”

Another Democrat trying to spend all our money…

Maybe we’d have been smarter to just attack the AlQaeda camps for a couple days, gotten bin Laden, and NOT INVADED THE FRIGGIN’ COUNTRY?? Nope, that would have been to simplistic, not simple minded.

Considering that the 19 billion we’ve spent on the Afghan debacle in rebuilding also provides for 97% of their economy (shades of Al Capp’s ‘Slobovia’ maybe?), it’s time we get out and get some green back in our pockets, Mr. Obama!

Actually, Richard Moulton, Jim Webb (D) and Bob Corker® have drafted (TOGETHER!) a resolution that requires our commander and chief to justify the dollars being spent in Afghanistan. Our blood treasure being lost is a miserable predicament I believe we ALL can agree on. In regard to fiscal prudence, this nation building business (other than our own) is foolishness of the highest order. Let’s quit with the us vs. them and work with one another to accomplish worthy goals, whattyasay?

BTW, Rich. It was a Republican president that started the Afgan war, not a donkey. I know it’s more fun to ignore reality in that little pink-lit place you seem to be, but really …

but our Job IS minding everyone else’s business for them, unless they have more hardware and bodies to throw at us than we have….

Which entitlements were you referring to? Unemployment is the virtually the only program in my state where the government gives cash to citizens who have not earned it.

Maybe you meant Social Security? I am entitled to SS when I am old enough, but not just because the government “gave” me that right, but because I and my employers have contributed around $200,000 to the program.

What I’m driving at is that this notion that we are broke because people have decided to stop working and live off of the government is flat wrong.

in 76 and 77 i drove my pickup from iran to afgan with pointy little things that go bang. they where gifts from us to all sides to point at the nasty ole ruskies. so what is new.

It’s ok if we spend the money there — if we spend it here at home, it’s called “socialism.”

Sorry about the typo, but you really should look into separating phrases with commas. If I wasn’t having to constantly re-read to see what you meant, I wouldn’t have said anything. When you type it, it seems fine, because you know where the pauses go. Those who read must decipher if you don’t show us.

So you would prefer to eliminate SNAP and let the needy starve?

The “general welfare” clause has for years been used to cover such actions of Congress. If you prefer a strict interpretation, that would just dump the responsibility back onto the states. Poorer states would be overwhelmed by the expense.

As for prices, exactly how does this program raise the cost of food? If we forced the poor to stop eating, food would get just a little cheaper, but that’s not a reasonable method of bringing down prices.

What is known is that SNAP is an ongoing and powerful positive stimulus upon the economy. Every $5 in benefits generates $10 in economic activity. We are not only supporting hungry Americans, but also grocers, farmers, and processors.

Also, you should know that 90% of the new SNAP cases in 2005 were in areas hit by hurricanes. These people were not enrolling because they decided to stop working, but because their possessions, along with many of their jobs, were washed away. Otherwise, rolls have been shrinking. The sign-up requirements have been made tough enough that 1/3 of those eligible do not receive any benefits.

All in all, I would say giving $4 a day to those who cannot afford food does not make for a “generous” program. I can’t imagine a civilized nation doing less, that’s for sure.

Oh, and SNAP cost less than 1% of the federal budget in ’08. Eliminating the entire program would barely budge the deficit.