Thursday Apr. 24, 2014
Comments on:
Guest Column
Let’s be civil.
The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), accuse someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail webmaster [at] flatheadbeacon.com.

The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.

  Newest First
By David E on 05-22-13 @ 2:44 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
20 up | 4 down


Yes 47 million Americans today are receiving Food Stamps. Yes there has been and increased need
since 2008. That need might have something to do with the great recession and the lose of jobs and
the growing income inequality. Wasteful spending? You fail to identify who is receiving this wasteful
spending, who these alleged wasteful 47 million people are? Well they are children, the elderly,
working families and military families. If you want to fix the problem then end poverty. Demand that
the minimum wage be raised to a livable wage. Demand that military pay be raised to a livable wage.
Demand that Social Security payments be raised to a livable standard. Surely the top 1 percent have
enough money now? Since they hold about 70 percent of the wealth. I think it is time we taxpayers
stop subsidizing wealthy corporations that make billions in profit while they pay their employees
poverty wages. Wages few can live on let alone raise a family. Can you say Walmart? Check out
what the top 100 people at Walmart made last year? That is only one Corporation. I do agree that
wealthy corporations should be means tested as are all those who now receive food stamps.
By mooseberryinn on 05-22-13 @ 5:56 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
1 up | 19 down


1.  What exactly will be a “liveable wage”?  If wages go up, prices go up.  It’s nice to say raise the
minimum wage, but traditionally such raises wind up being closely followed by higher prices.  Net
result = people still can’t afford to live well.  You may have noticed grocery prices already rising
quickly and steadily.  Food Stamps - the need is there, and King Obama hasn’t done anything to
decrease it.  Eventually, more and more people will be on Food Stamps putting still more pressure
on gov’t to raise taxes.  Net result = less income to pay for groceries, less ability for small business
to hire etc.  The bottom line generally - it is better to get gov’t out of the way of business.
By David E on 05-22-13 @ 6:54 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
15 up | 1 down


Oh good it’s you did you wake up from your nap? Free speech is a right, to remain silent is also a
right. One you should use more often.
By reggie on 05-26-13 @ 8:27 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
11 up | 0 down


Americans for Prosperity….............Of the top .01%....... To hell with everyone else, it’s the
Republican way.
By redhawk on 05-26-13 @ 9:28 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
12 up | 0 down


Americans for Prosperity…hmmmm…wonder exactly who’s prosperity they represent?  I’m sick and
tired of all the groups with hidden agendas and members that spend trillions trying to
‘enlighten’ us with skewed facts.
A large portion of Americans are on food stamps?!  A whole bunch of them qualify for food stamps
even though they ARE working.  How is that not corporate welfare?  Even with a job, their kids
qualify for medicaid.  More corporate welfare.  When you can take huge tax cuts to ‘create’ jobs
that pay so little that more public tax money has to be added to feed and supply healthcare to
your workers…something is seriously skewed.
By mooseberryinn on 05-26-13 @ 11:45 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
0 up | 13 down


One question - where is all the money to “raise” these things to come from?  Might want to learn
something about economics there guys.
By Fast on 05-26-13 @ 5:34 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
4 up | 3 down


Why not! Welfare for all.
By Westside2 on 05-27-13 @ 10:36 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
4 up | 1 down


Well said Fast.  We DO need a more equitable distribution of goods and services.
By mooseberryinn on 05-28-13 @ 9:43 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
0 up | 5 down


What we don’t need is a gov’t that directs “distribution of goods and services”  that is called
communism, and it has proven not to work well at all.
By Westside2 on 05-28-13 @ 12:30 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
0 up | 0 down


Yeah.  The first step is acknowledging the problem.  Agreed.  Government nor ideology is not the
solution.
 
Kellyn Brown
Kellyn Brown3h
@kellynbrown
Former pro skier has plans for an academy for young adults looking to train in the outdoors http://t.co/YFOI9pdVVf http://t.co/R8NCamjqUD
Dillon Tabish
Dillon Tabish3h
@djtabish
Former pro skier has plans for an academy for young adults looking to train in the outdoors http://t.co/YFOI9pdVVf http://t.co/R8NCamjqUD
Molly Priddy
Molly Priddy37m
@mollypriddy
@FABarnhill @EmilieRSaunders Call me when you've started organizing your own hands. "Left pinkie." "Left ring finger" etc.
Tristan Scott
Tristan Scott23 Apr
@tristanscott
Meet the law firm behind W.R. Grace and scores of other notable Montana cases. http://t.co/PXTGJGoYdH
Flathead Beacon
FB Headlines2h
@flatheadbeacon