After Hours
Any Park Ranger will tell us to refrain from feeding the wildlife, lest they become dependent on the handouts.
Food Stamps in America are being handed out at record levels.
I guess people aren't as smart (or as important) as wildlife.
by av .
That's an excellent comparison, Max. I fail to understand why 47 million people receive food stamps. This is an interesting link about the food stamp program http://www.trivisonno.com/food-stamps-charts
The problem I have with food stamps is that it has become a way of life for too many people. The food stamp program was meant to be a temporary helping hand in hard times, not permanent supplemental income. As long as our government continues to hand out "free" assistance, there will always be takers who game the system. The "free" government assistance is not actually free, it is paid for by the taxpayers through wealth redistribution.
AV
by robo_dev
The U.S. labor market was already shrinking before the recession, more wage inequality and fewer good jobs.
If our electronics and clothes are made in China, our cars are made in Mexico, and your PC support comes from Hyderbad, where are the good paying factory jobs we saw in the 1960s-1990s??? Where are the good entry-level IT jobs?
They are gone forever.
People have to eat. Living is poverty is not a lifestyle choice. Nearly two million veterans and active-duty military personnel are on food-stamps and more than $100M of food-stamp spending happens on military bases.
The food stamp program costs $72B a year. Raising taxes on the rich will bring in $80B a year. Problem solved.
Is there fraud, waste, and abuse? Of course there is, it's a government program.
But would lots of kids go to bed hungry without it? Yup.
by john.a.wills
by av .
Take out the military, unemployed or underemployed and maybe some seniors and the number is still unbelievably high. The program is supposed to be for the needy and I find it hard to believe there are that many needy people in this country. I think there are probably quite a few people that have eked out a lifestyle based on government welfare programs.
I've known a few over the years and they take advantage of every available program that there is. One woman I know of is on disability. She is married, her husband works and they have 3 kids. They live in a $400,000 house. She collects $16,000 a year from Social Security and receives $8000 a year for each child. Her husband works in IT and makes a 6 figure salary. Thats a good deal, isn't it? They go on more vacations than I do.
I used to babysit for woman with 4 kids whose husband left her. She went on welfare, received food stamps. Welfare got her a house, fully subsidized, to live in. She went to college for free and worked under the table for extra money. All of their healthcare was for free. She did get her degree and got a job and off the programs, but you can live a pretty nice lifestyle using government programs.
I agree that we need to give a helping hand to the needy, but it seems to me that our current food stamp and welfare programs do not have enough oversight to prevent abuse like this. Also, there are many charity organizations that provide help for the needy. Shouldn't it be the role of charities to provide this help for the most part and not the taxpayers? If we are spending $72B a year just on food stamps, we should be looking at why.
AV
by purpleskys
so many of those people are without a job or a roof over the heads (for whatever reason). If it were just as simple as giving those in need a home and some form of gainful employment, I would be all in. I know too many folks that have to swollow their pride and go to food banks or collect food stamps just to feed their families because they can't find a job. I'm a trained office administrator, experienced waitress, and have 17 years experience working in a local carpet factory on the floor. I've been jobless for 13 months and without umemployment for two months. I've had two interviews for the about 25 jobs that I have applied for and the two employers both told me that they had an extraordinary amount of applications for the jobs they had posted. I happen to be lucky enough to have a husband that has a job, many are single income families without a significant other.
This week, our local food bank did their annual food drive in conjunction with our local radio station and a few other sponsers. Our community did fantastic; over 66,000 lbs of food and monitary donations were collected; even in the cold rain of the day, our community came out in force. Things are tight at our home, but I always make a commitment of at least 10.00 in non-parishable goods. I always figure I'm greatful for the times that it was there when my mom was a single parent raising my four siblings (I was out on my own by then) and I never know when I may need the service myself in the future.
We're coming into the season of giving and being thankful for what we have. I give when I can and am truly thankful for what we have. Have a happy weekend everyone and please give when you can.
Lee
by darryl~
by purpleskys
by robo_dev
It is admirable for you to think of others even when you have little. What goes around comes around.
That's the sort of thinking that helps our country rise above the petty politics of us and them, and helps us to remember there is only 'us'.
by purpleskys
by av .
There are a lot of truly needy people nowadays, so I always give what I can to the food bank. No one should go hungry. I only wish that people that take advantage of programs like this and don't need to would stop and think about those less fortunate.
After New Jersey got hit with Hurricane Sandy, there are so many people that are homeless here as a result they can't find places to live. Many weren't rich people with second homes at the shore, they were people that made their living from the water and fishing industries. Some were quite poor before and now they've lost everything, including their livelihood. The Red Cross did a fabulous job here organizing and setting up shelters. I was one of those people that was in need of their services out of desperation. It was quite a humbling experience to wait for 2 hours for a shower, but there was no other choice. I was grateful for that shower and to have my home intact to go back to.
Now that my life is back to normal, I will never forget that experience. I've always supported the Red Cross in the past, never expected to need them, but they were there for me when I really needed it. I will always support them because they offer a wonderful service to people that are really in need and I got to see it first hand.
AV
by boxfiddler Hot topic
It's perfectly safe to feed birds. Even those who visit feeders most frequently get less than a third of their diet from humans. Many abandon feeders when natural sources are at their seasonal peaks. Not all forms of wildlife are looking to become permanant moochers.
As to relative importance, part of the reason rangers don't want dependent animals is because they can be a major threat to humans. The warning isn't just for the animals' benefit. If a human is injured violating the prohibition, it's usually the animal that gets shot. So much for which is more important.
Sorry, lousy analog.
by robo_dev
:)
You saw how dependent Yogi is on government handouts.
by ansugisalas
Ignorance and stupidity also come to mind.
Hey, he either believes what he wrote or he doesn't. Either way, he's proving himself a fool (yet again).
by robo_dev
Decrease the surplus population.
The 46m people on food stamps consists of 22m families. Logically therefore about 50% of those on food stamps are children.
Maybe if we stopped feeding all those children they would stop mooching off the government.
by purpleskys
Someone who has absolutely no idea as to whether or not I really am a "Scrooge". Someone who missed the entire point by employing the usual straw-man (Scrooge) argument. Someone who thinks government actually helps, opposed to someone (like me) who knows for certain that such government has become harmful in the long run. Someone who advocates reaching into someone else's pocket to help those he deems "needy", opposed to someone like me who advocates reaching into one's own pocket to help others. Someone who apparently believes that his brand of compassion (using government as his strong-arm) trumps mine.
And in the process of supporting his straw-man (Scrooge) argument, he made assertions that may or may not be true, when, in fact, he really has no idea as to how the "real numbers" would fall or what they would reveal.
Show me the breakdown (from a reliable and accurate source) as to the recipients of food stamps, and how much of it is fraudulent, and how much of it is actually unnecessary, and how much of it goes to illegal aliens, etc., lest you leave your made-up assertions at home.
By the way, over the past years, our federal government has been advertising in Mexico telling Mexican citizens how they can get American Food Stamps. My question is this. Why stop at Mexico? Hell, let's advertize all over the world! And then reach into other people's pockets to pay for it!
by robo_dev
The point is not that the system is perfect...it is not. Show me a government program without a certain percentage of fraud or waste, and I'll show you my herd of flying pigs.
I have studied the numbers, I know the numbers.
The worst number is that the Iraq war cost $720M per day, and Afghanistan costs roughly $300M per day. Everybody cries about how foodstamps are causing the deficit, yet these two unfunded wars are the root cause. Keep in mind the cost of SNAP is $72B...roughly 70 days of war = one year of food stamps.
Government does not fix every problem, and less government would be a good thing, but in the meantime people gotta eat.
The point is that it's very easily to point fingers and lump every needy person into one bucket of 'takers' and overlook the very real requirement that human beings require food to survive.
This is not a personal sleight, this is to make the point that wealthy American conservatives seem intent on reducing and/or eliminating the safety nets, for their personal gain, while not giving one red cent to charity to help at the local level. Look at how much charitiable giving Romney gave, outside the money to CLDS. Pennies....
And, would we not agree, that it seems terribly convenient that the 'big government' agenda seems to be to starve funding for public schools, make drug crimes harsher, then privatize prisons.
by nicknielsen
"A person must be a U.S. citizen or an eligible, lawfully-present non-citizen to qualify for SNAP benefits." In short simple words, illegal aliens cannot legally receive food stamps. (My personal belief is that the vast majority don't. That somebody subject to deportation if discovered in this country would willingly have [u]anything[/u] to do with government is, quite simply, a non sequitur.)
The rest of your questions are answered here:
http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/snap-frequently-asked-questions/.
Quite simply, Max, robo_dev's numbers are quite close to reality. Now, about those ads in Mexico...
by av .
Its just disgraceful that any of our military are underpaid after the sacrifices that they made for our country.
AV
by ansugisalas
even in the years with heavy losses.
Coming home to empty homes with eviction notices isn't all that uncommon, I hear.
during the Great depression, here in Australia they came up with an idea called The Dole. Unemployed men registered with the government for The Dole. Week 1 they were given food stamps redeemable at any store. Week 2 they were given fully paid work on various government programs around the country. They got 'x' amount of time at full pay (I think it was two days), then another half day for each dependent. So a man with a wife and 3 kids got two extra day's work at full pay.
There were a number of jokes that went about along the lines of :
"hey Joe, did ya hear about poor Paddy Murphy?"
"No, what about him?"
"His boss' business went belly up and he had to register for the dole."
"So?"
"Poor Bastards has eleven kids. So to meet his Dole allotment, he has to work a double shift three days a week. It's damn near killing him."
.............
During that time The Dole work did a hell of lot in needed infrastructure, so the country got a real benefit for the money expended.
Today, the unions scream if anyone suggests the same again as they see it taking money away from their members - never mind it's work that couldn't be afforded any other way. And thus people get a cash hand out now.
(Although I don't think it's their intent.)
My position is that the federal government should not be in the food handing out business. (Perhaps very limited in certain situations.) Citizens in local communities can take care of their own needs themselves, as it should be - and as you illustrated.
The problem with discussing SO MANY issues around this place is that people confuse government solutions with private or local solutions. Not all problems should rely on government to provide the solutions. I'm not opposed to giving attention to the problem, I'm opposed to giving government attention to the problem, especially if it means turning its citizens into a dependent class - which is exactly what's happening.
It's actually MORE humane and compassionate to want people free of government dependency instead of being reliant on it. (Maybe it's time I start attacking your values by calling you two the Scrooges.)
by boxfiddler Hot topic
by purpleskys
I don't believe our local food bank is government run. (Darryl will correct me if I'm wrong). It is run mostly by volunteers and the majority of product they have is donated. We are a community that very much takes care of its own as much as possible. The local government here would just as soon turn a blind eye to the homeless issues we have here.
I think I do understand what you're trying to say, it's not so much the government in your area; it’s the folks that take advantage as AV has pointed out.
In a perfect world it would be all good to give people a job so they could be "people free of government dependency instead of being reliant on it". Now, if it were only that simple. We have three big named factories here in town that are running on half the amount of employees as they used putting about 1000 plus hard working folks out of work. That takes money out of the economy of this rural town. If they want a good paying job, they have to go to Fort McMurray to get one. Just makes Alberta richer, not little Truro, Nova Scotia. Of course, it doesn’t help that minimum wage in Nova Scotia is one of the lowest in the country and we have the third highest gas prices in the country. And don’t even get me going on our privately owned power company and their constant whining for rate increases....I’ll end this here because I could go on and on and on boring you to complete tears.
Back on track a bit for a quick second. I do understand what you’re trying to say and even agree with what you in a way (to a point), I just wish it were as simple as doing just that.
by darryl~
by nicknielsen
Bridges, highways, sewers, water systems, etc. Most are a half-century old or older and falling apart. And almost all are government-owned. I would have thought, in the aftermath of the I-35 bridge collapse, that people would have taken the need seriously. Obviously, I was wrong.
Fixing all that will require workers, whether employed by contractors or government itself, and many of them will fill jobs that don't exist now (but that government can't create because, of course, government doesn't create jobs...).
by ansugisalas
Over here roadworks are the first thing that's put under way when the crisis hits... sometimes when there's little need.
But having run down roads [b]and[/b] an economic crisis, that's just silly.
by delbertpgh
Your second lady, whose husband left and who eventually got a degree and a job, seems to have taken advantage of the programs and made herself a successful, independent economic agent who supports her children without further direct assistance. Sounds to me like a great justification for those programs. Too bad the hardship cases aren't all like her.
Your other lady doesn't sound as sweet, but if she's disabled and she worked before being laid low, then she's entitled to disability payments from Social Security. I assume the kids must be from a prior husband, since I don't believe they'd be entitled to support payments if she lived with their father. Is she actually married to husband #2?
by av .
But, why wasn't her bum of a husband held accountable? Instead it was us taxpayers? Surely he must have had a job somewhere.
The other lady is one of those people that knows how to game the system. The kids are from her current husband and SS still pays her for them. I don't understand how that can be, but its true. Supposedly, she is terminally ill and should have been dead awhile ago, but I met her and there is nothing disabled about her. I don't think she has ever held a real job. To me, SS should investigate the doctor that put her on disability in the first place.
AV
by hal 9000
Simply refuse to play by the rules that we accept. I know of several people who just give up when faced with challenges and retire to their own little shell and do absolutely nothing at all.
If womans 2 Male Partner was like this it doesn't matter what you try to do if he refuses to work and does nothing at all do you honestly believe that the kids should suffer?
I've also seen cases where otherwise wealth people have no Legal Income and can not be forced to pay what they Legally Do Not Have to support their kids.
With people the real problem is [b]People[/b] are involved and way too often what is reasonable gets tossed out with the Bath Water so that one or both parties involved win what they want or at the very least don't pay what they are obliged to.
But then again without knowing anything of the people involved at all it is just as likely that the male involved died and the insurance company providing Life Insurance refused to pay out on the claim leaving the woman and kids with nothing except debts.
Col
by delbertpgh
It might be most just, as far as society is concerned, to stick her ex-husband with all the burden of helping her find her feet and become independent. It seems like he wasn't very good at caring for her in the first place, though; what makes you think we'd be successful at insisting that he cough up support money? Should she be shackled to this failure of a man, who might even quit working out of spite, or even worse, decide it would be easier on him to move back in with her? The "charity" system worked well for her, and produced as much justice as you're likely to get in life. You could choose to dwell instead on a man who runs away from responsibilities and is probably making a fresh tragedy of some cocktail waitress's life now. Some people will always be a waste: he is; his ex-wife isn't.
Don't know what to say about your other gal. Unless she faked her medical exam, it seems like a diagnosis of no work and a fatal illness are grounds for receiving disability payments. Perhaps the fact that she can enjoy life while receiving government checks seems unjust? Maybe she's scamming; maybe not.
by delbertpgh
Spoken as only a flaming leftist, progressive, Democrat could speak. Calling food stamps a subsidy for employers.
I shake my head in disbelief.
by ansugisalas
by av .
I'm going to lose most of one Sugar Maple in the front of my house. I have broken branches and "leaner" trees that will have to come down. All in all, I'm unscathed, but emotionally I'm so afraid of ever going through another storm like that. Its the second storm in a year than has been just terrifying if you live in the woods. Thanks for asking.
AV
by ansugisalas
I ask for numbers for one thing, but you provide numbers (made up or otherwise) for something different. I ask you to provide a source for something you claimed, but you answer with a question asking me to provide a source for something different.
Sorry, dude, I don't let someone get away with the diversion tactic of answering a question with a question without calling them out on it. And I won't answer your question until you answer mine.
I will say this, however; advertising food stamps to people - including illegal immigrants - was something the Bush Administration also did. And I was just as hard - if not harder - on him for doing it, and just as opposed to the practice.
You can't see past your own bias, dude.
The people who are net tax receivers are, at least, getting something from it. But for those who are not net tax receivers, yet they continue to advocate for MORE net tax receiving, are the absolute biggest fools I've ever seen in my entire life.
There's something fundamentally wrong when a comment like, [i]"There are a record 47 million receiving food stamps"[/i] generates totally opposite responses and sentiments. While some would let their emotions lead them to believe there are are really that many [i]"hungry"[/i] Americans out there, there are others (like me) who see this as more evidence of the obvious and egregious misuse of government as the misguided instrument of people's misguided compassion.
Next up, the obesity crisis in America - all those Americans overeating! Hell, we don't need government food stamps. We need government to take the food from the fat people who overeat and give it to those [i]"hungry"[/i] people who get food stamps. There ya' go - government solving two problems with one solution!
Hey, if you big government people advocate taking [i][b]money[/b][/i] from people who have more of it (more than they "need"), so it can be given to those who have less, you can surely see the logic in taking [i][b]FOOD[/b][/i] from people who have more of it (more than they "need"), so it can be given to those who have less.
But that would surely present a dilemma - a FAT person getting food stamps! And to solve that problem, a FOOD CZAR!
by ansugisalas
I made no statement that requires documentation. I said "many", not "most", unlike "most", "many" is indeterminate.
To doubt that "many" welfare recipients do in fact belong to both of the other subgroups is hardly an informed stance.
by ansugisalas
George Carlin is (was) a comedian who can (could) deliver comedy.
But since you can only deliver buffoonery .......... well, let's just say it doesn't make you a comedian.
by ansugisalas
by ansugisalas
same concept. They're afraid all the homeless from surrounding states will crowd into NYC to get some of that free food.
As pathetic an outlook as that is, I find that their setting quotas for cops to stop and frisk people is even more sickening.
Surefire way to make the cops feel in opposition to the populace, and vice versa.
by nicknielsen
by ansugisalas
Why is it when someone points out government overspending on one thing, so many people reply - with some sort of justification, I assume - with a comment about even higher government spending on something else?
[i]"Oh yea, well what about ......"[/i]
Sounds like a school yard playground comment.
How about this? Government spends too much money on everything!
Geesh, Nick. You either think the government food stamp program is a sham, a waste, and destructive, or you don't.
I do. AV does. Are you really defending it?
by nicknielsen
[i]You either think the government food stamp program is a sham, a waste, and destructive, or you don't. [/i]
I think it's a crock of schitt that 42 million people can't find work that pays them enough to buy food for their families. Hell, yes, I'm defending it; it's keeping people alive. What's the other option? Swift's elegant solution? Did you read anything at any of the links I provided below? Or that anybody else has provided? Or did you discount the information in them because your preconceptions make it difficult to impossible for you to consider that a government program outside defense might be useful?
And before you go off about helping, yes, I help when I can; so do millions of others. I suspect even you help when possible. But the help that's provided isn't enough to do more than stave off starvation. The help that is needed most is a living wage for full-time workers, and, given the conduct of business in such an environment (cf. Gilded Age), your anti-regulation, free-market stance essentially means you're against that, too!
Is the USA, as you have previously described it, the "greatest nation on the face of the Earth"? Does it do its best to take care of all its citizens, with the government stepping in when private organizations cannot? Or is it just another third-world nation with the wealth and income concentrated in the hands of a very few, with the remainder of the population fighting to survive in the face of a system that tells them all they have to do to improve themselves is work, while denying them the chance?
by av .
We shouldn't be, but that is a different discussion entirely. We as a country are seriously broke. Unfortunately, once you get into a war its not so easy to get out.
AV
by nicknielsen
We as a country have the single largest economy on the planet, with a 2010 GDP somewhere between $14.4 trillion and $15.1 trillion (let's split the difference and call it $14.75 trillion).
The expected average federal tax rate (Tax receipts/GDP) is expected to be about 14.8%, meaning the federal government would receive about $2.18 trillion in tax collections. If the overall federal tax rate was at the post WW2 average of 18.5%, the federal government would receive about $2.73 trillion, about $550 billion more (deficit reduction!). If we eliminate the war spending, that money can either be not spent at all (more deficit reduction!) or we could spend some of it on badly needed infrastructure projects (creating jobs and putting people to work, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for food stamps - deficit reduction again!) and not spend the rest (even more deficit reduction!).
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/
by ansugisalas
If a family loses a job, is it better that they:
A) Spend their time trying to survive, selling property to eat
or
B) Spend their time looking for a new one, keeping property and retaining their employability?
Having a robust workforce (one that doesn't keel over and die when there's a crisis, see Famine of Ireland), is a great boon to business, and is one of the reasons we're better off now than we were a hundred years ago.
Of course, the amount of help to be given can be discussed, but anyone suggesting that no help be given is clearly unaware of their own history.
by ansugisalas
http://m.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/10/66-americas-growing-underclass/3618/
People who work full time, and still can't make enough to make ends meet.
Of course, that's what happens when the corporations tweak the system.
That's your premise; and your premise is flawed. It renders the rest of your argument (here or elsewhere) moot.
The current version of the official [i]Food Stamp Assistance Program[/i] wasn't implemented until 1964, so your premise that people would die without it would suggest that people died without it before 1964, which is not true.
It's not the role of government to hand out food on a regular basis to its citizens - without which NO ONE WOULD DIE. If you think otherwise, you're a fool.
by nicknielsen
supporting your assertion. But I'm still waiting for the Mexican food stamp ads, too.
[i]...your premise that people would die without it would suggest that people died without it before 1964, which is not true.[/i]
Nobody ever died because they couldn't get food? Sounds like another recent quote, something to the effect that nobody ever died because they couldn't get medical care.
The food stamp program is a symptom, Max. Until you stop spouting talking points about stereotypes and address the reason the program is even necessary, any complaint you may have about the size of the program is, at best, disingenuous.
by av .
I think its a disincentive to taking responsibility for yourself. Let me ask you something. Say you lost your job and you got an entry level job and weren't making ends meet. Do you think to yourself "I really need to get on food stamps." Or "I need to sign up for welfare". OR do you think "Maybe I need to work an additional part time job for awhile till I find another better paying job" or "Maybe I need to tighten my belt more". Why does the government have to subsidize so many people that COULD be able to do it on their own if they had to?
Everyone has hard times in their life sometime and if their answer is always to look for a government program to help them when they are faced with hard times they will never develop the skills to face life's challenges on their own. You may look at me as a cold and mean, but I think the majority of those people getting food stamps are doing it because they CAN. Its easy to get. It is, after all, free money and they're entitled. I've met people that do it in the course of my life and they're not even ashamed to take it when they don't really need it. They're greedy, not needy and they don't care that it means that the truly needy get less.
I've had hard times in my live and NEVER did I ever consider government programs as the answer to my dilemma. I worked two jobs. Whatever I had to do, I did to make it through on my own. I lived without. I worked long days. I always managed.
The greatest nation on the face of the Earth became great because of values that are largely missing today. People had pride and worked hard to achieve the "American Dream". It is still achievable if you're willing to work for it. The wealthy in this country don't owe the rest of us anything. Sure, we can tax them till they're out of money supporting the rest of us, but in the end it comes down to people taking responsibility for themselves.
Don't get me wrong Nick. There are some truly needy people in this country and I don't begrudge taking care of those in need, but then there are those that have made a lifestyle around taking advantage of government programs, and that, I have a problem with.
AV
by av .
We are living in a dream in this country. Even if war spending is eliminated, it doesn't address the existing debt and future spending on entitlements when all the baby boomers retire. That is huge. And, we have a sputtering economy. Not enough investment in America to sustain itself.
The re-election of Obama was a bummer for business. All they can look forward to now is higher taxes and being straddled with Obamacare.
AV
by nicknielsen
The vast majority of SNAP recipients are children, the elderly, and the disabled; 76% of SNAP benefits goes to children.
This is the food stamp recipient I know. I worked alongside him for two years, supporting different equipment for the same customer. Five years ago, his employer lost the contract he was supporting. The new contractor (not my employer) didn't hire [u]any[/u] of the existing techs. He's busting his ass trying to just get back to where he was five years ago, and can't. The story is condensed. [Names] have been removed. Most of the words are his.
**
After two years of [excrement], I finally got a full time with [company], [Hardware OEM]'s local warranty contractor. I started at $9.50/hour and haven't gotten a raise since.
My job? m paid by the hour, but don't get paid for driving between customers. I'm given a certain number of parts each day and the addresses and scheduled appointment times. They want me to finish the calls in 8 hours of [u]on site[/u] time. I'If there are appointments 50 miles apart at the same time, I have to call the customers and tell them I'll be late; if they say they can't wait, I don't get paid for that call.
Second job? [laughing] Right. The [derogatory name] schedule the appointments between 7am and 9pm, and I never know when before they are assigned. The only day I know I'll have off is Sunday.
Mileage reimbursement? Nope. They say it's because it's not paid time. Tax deduction? You're kidding! I already get all my withholding back every year.
Our second "baby" was twins. My wife was laid off just after I started this job because she had trouble with the pregnancy and was "abusing" her ability to take unpaid time off. Put her back to work? Is there something in your beer? With three kids in child care, we'd be losing money! Even if she can find a job that pays what I'm making, she wouldn't make enough to cover child care and transportation.
I hate the area we live in now, but it was the only apartment we could afford after we lost the house. We took a $20k loss when it sold, but we had some equity, so we only had $9,000 left to pay. And I'm so glad we sold that when we did; it was three years before another house sold in that development! Thank God the car is paid for; I just hope it lasts for another year or two, until I can get back on my feet.
Food stamps? Hell, yes! It's not even 100 bucks a week, but it buys milk & cereal, meat, and macaroni.
**
by nicknielsen
You've been paying FICA & Medicare premiums, I've been paying them, even Max has been paying them. If they are "entitlements", it's because, having paid into them, we're entitled to receive from them.
The problem is not that "we're broke", the problem is that we don't want to pay for what we get from government.
The federal government's share of GDP in 2010 was [b]14.9%[/b], 4.5 points lower than its postwar average of 18.5%. The CBO projects that share to drop to 14.8% for 2011.
by av .
Its a shame that neither of the parents thought about the cost of having children. Honestly, why should that be my responsibility? I don't get that part. There are a lot of sad stories in the world and maybe this one falls into the needy category, but if you can't afford to raise a family, why do it? So, the rest of us bear the burden of it through our tax dollars? It just isn't fair.
I take care of my life and my familie's life, why can't other people do the same?
AV
In the discussion, [i]Should Obama be Reelected[/i], you were, pretty much, coming across as an advocate for third-party voting because both parties are out of control. You said that the government spent its money on the wrong things, should focus on infrastructure and that sort of thing. You called Obama (and Romney) a proven liar.
And now, you support Obama (the proven liar) and his increased (or continued) federal government spending to give food stamps to 48 million Americans, who would, according to you, presumably all die, or otherwise suffer needlessly, without them.
But you do play the [i]"class envy"[/i] card, or [i]"class demonizaton"[/i] card pretty well - and pretty often - which was (and is) evidenced by your smarmy criticism of Romney and how he came to earn (or otherwise obtain) his wealth. You can do that as well as any Democrat!
Nick [i]"assumes"[/i] that these 48 million people [/i]"need"[/i] food stamps. He wonders what kind of country we've become when 48 million people [i]"need"[/i] food assistance. I wonder which orifice he pulled the [i]"need"[/i] assertion out from. Just because they're offered, and just because the offer is accepted, it doesn't automatically create a [i]"need"[/i]. Nick might make the assertion, but it doesn't make it true.
In the sentiment of, [i]"Build it and they will come"[/i], we can also conclude, [i]"Hand out freebies, and they will take them."[/i]
It's also painfully obvious that Nick neither understands, nor recognizes the ideology behind, the growth of the food stamp program. Intended as a safety net in the 1930s (and as a means to distribute free food commodities more effectively), it's become an intergenerational dependency program - and vote buying ploy; vote for the person who will give me more free stuff: phones, food stamps, rent subsidies, whatever; sell your vote to the highest bidder. And Nick supports such a thing.
The [i]Food Stamp Program[/i], which was started in the late 1930s, provided the [i]"safety net"[/i] of which many people (including Nick) speak, and quite frankly, regardless of my libertarian views, I'd be willing to compromise and allow the federal government to provide such a [i]"safety net"[/i] . But President Johnson expanded it in 1964, along with myriad other government assistance programs - all under the guise of the [i]War on Poverty"[/i], and suddenly the percentage of people living under the poverty threshold started to increase, where it had been decreasing every decade since the Civil War (with the exception of the 1930s). But no, when people like Nick rally in favor of 48 million people receiving intergenerational dependency causing federal government assistance - which is actually harmful to both families and the country in the long run - all in the name of providing a [i]"safety net"[/i], I can't help but think that Nick is either sadly misguided or terribly misinformed by calling it all a [i]"safety net"[/i].
When 48 million Americans are occupying what used to be a [i]"safety net"[/i], over and above all the other federal [i]"safety nets"[/i] being advanced and supported, only a fool wouldn't recognize that it will all collapse under the weight of its own obligations.
By the way, on your "waiting" for my [i]Advertising Food Stamps in Mexico"[/i] proof, you never asked me for it. Robo_Dev did - as an answer to my request for him to provide proof for his assertions. In essence, he answered a question with a question, thereby evading my original question, which I do not allow someone to get away with. So you can wait until hell freezes over, or until Robo_Dev provides the proof that I originally asked for. (Hell freezing over might come first.) Or, you could just research it yourself - and make sure you go to the Government Web site that lists all the government benefits made available to immigrants of all flavors, not just those from Mexico!
P.S. Nick said:
[i]"The food stamp program is a symptom, Max. Until you stop spouting talking points about stereotypes and address the reason the program is even necessary, any complaint you may have about the size of the program is, at best, disingenuous."[/i]
Who in the hell is stereotyping people, Nick? Not me. Others might use the word, [i]"freeloaders"[/i], or some other pejorative, but I don't. I focus on the role of government and the merits of the program itself. I focus on how the federal government programs have come to be vote-buying vehicles. You, Nick, are the one throwing around stereotypes - and being disingenuous (or misinformed) in the process.
But I do agree that the food stamp program is a symptom - a symptom of out of control federal government; a symptom of intergenerational dependency causing federal programs; and a symptom of a federal government that is bankrupting our country, both fiscally and morally.
by nicknielsen
What I provided is the publicly-available information. Th
The information you want is not consolidated in any one location, that I can find. And, given the strong need for many to prove fraud & waste in the food stamp and welfare programs, I must say I'm surprised; if the fraud and waste were there in the quantities posited by you and others, there would be plenty of information about it.
I'm not saying there's no fraud or waste, just that documentation of it is as legendary as the Welfare Queen...
by nicknielsen
Regarding your comment, [i]... stop spending on war, start spending on infrastructure (which would, you said, create jobs)"[/i], I said, all that's doing, at best, is taking one job for the purpose of creating another.
Again, you evaded what I really said, and strung up something that I did not say to argue against. Typical for someone without a legitimate rebuttal.
by av .
We do pay into them, but when the program was designed, it wasn't meant to sustain people for 20 or 30 years. Life expectancies today are much greater than in the past. There were more people paying into the system in the past as well. This has caused a shortfall in our obligations and its only going to get worse if they don't find a way to fix the program.
AV
[i]"Governments do not create jobs; bold people and innovative businesses do."[/i]
- President Barack Obama
http://news.investors.com/print/ibd-editorials/052511-573386-government-doesnt-create-jobs.aspx
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/fallacy-government-creates-jobs
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/10/27/government-doesnt-create-jobs.html
by nicknielsen
And tell the people working at Fort Jackson and Shaw AFB that government doesn't create jobs.
Go to any town or city that has lost a military base in the last 20 years and tell them the jobs they lost weren't created by government.
You used to be interesting, Max. Now, you just sound like Fox.
by av .
Its the military. Paid for by the taxpayers. What about the rest of of us? Government doesn't create those jobs. I mean real, long term jobs. Not temp jobs working filling pot holes in the roads like Obama's stimulous provided. Something that has a real career path for people. Only private business can provide that.
The military is something totally different than private enterprise.
AV
I find it amusing that people accuse me of being a [i]Fox News Junkie[/i], when, in fact, I absolutely never watch Fox News. Never! Absolutely NEVER!
I have a very low opinion of television media in general; hell, I dont even have cable TV; I still use rabbit ears, so I couldn't watch Fox News if I wanted to. Take the NFL out of the picture (no pun intended), and on average, I might have my TV on an hour or two a week (I do like to watch Jeopardy).
Sure, I see Fox News - as well as MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, et al - in the course of visiting people, going places where its on, seeing references on the Internet, etc., but watching TV News is not even on my Radar Screen. I really can't remember the last time I watched a TV News program.
Come to think of it, if anything, I make it a point to keep tabs on MSNBC more than any other News Network (even though I don't [i]"watch"[/i] them either.)
P.S. You used to be interesting, Nick. Now, you just sound like a pompous elitist who comes across as though he's[i] "above it all"[/i]. Try coming off your high-horse.
I start a thread about the federal government's excessive Food Stamp Program; Nick advocated his enthusiastic support for the growth in the federal Food Stamp Program; I challenge the merits of his support and how it reconciles (or fails to reconcile) with other statements he's made; he's starting to sound silly in his support for the federal Food Stamp Program; so what does he do? He obsesses on [i]"government created jobs".[/i]
Well, Nick, I've said very little, if anything, about [i]"government created jobs"[/i], except to post that Obama quote and a couple of other articles about it. Argue with those other people - including Obama - about what they, themselves, said.
I'm talking about the federal Food Stamp Program, and your diversion tactics speak only to your inability to support your own arguments about the federal Food Stamp Program.
If the government does create jobs - and I'm not arguing whether they do or don't (it's all a matter of semantics, anyway) - then it's TOO DAMN MANY!!!!! America is about private sector jobs, not government sector jobs or government[i] "created"[/i] jobs. And if you disagree with that simple ideology, we are indeed on opposite ends of that spectrum - with you being on the wrong end.
What about all those government contracts to build things like aircraft, ships, tanks, and other weapons systems? If you don't think those jobs aren't created by the government, listen to their elected representatives scream whenever someone tries to cut them from the budget.
Who do you think law enforcement and firemen work for? Restaurant and food preparation inspectors?
Government shouldn't be the PRIMARY source of jobs, but to say it doesn't create them is ignoring where those tax dollars get spent, especially those dollars spent in the name of 'defense'.
[i]"The Communists have won in America with Obama ...... Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them."[/i]
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-0/
So say the Russians.
by nicknielsen
at any tea party rallies.
Oh, wait...you said [u]il[/u]literate...never mind...
by ansugisalas
People with jobs spend money, this money creates jobs.
This fixation on private versus government is silly. A job is a job.
A permanent job is better than a short-term one, but tell that to Walmart.
by av .
That increases the number of low-paying, service sector jobs. Private enterprise creates higher paying jobs and careers outside of military focused areas.
AV
by nicknielsen
The military is buying more and more high-tech equipment and that equipment needs maintenance. Sure, the initial front-line work is done by the military, but that's usually just a box-swap. The real work is done in the back shops, where they have the specialized test and repair centers to open up those boxes and repair them. That work is usually done by civilian employees of the equipment manufacturer. And, to ensure they comply with federal law, government contractors generally pay their employees better.
Let's be real, here. McDonnell Douglas, Grumman, Rockwell, AM General, and major divisions or subsidiaries of Motorola, GE, Westinghouse, Boeing, and even Trane, subsist primarily off of government (usually military) spending. Max is correct that there is a trade-off in cutting military spending because jobs go away. But if jobs go away because the government stops spending the money that kept those jobs in existence, how did the government, whether directly or indirectly, [u]not[/u] create those jobs?
How many civilian jobs create career paths? McDonalds gets thousands of people started, but few of them stick around long enough to rise through their commendable 'promote from within' system. Tell me about the career paths at Wal-Mart. Tell me about the career paths at most small 'mom and pop' businesses.
If we allocated the tax money necessary to fix the roads properly, it would take a couple of decades to repair them all. In this day of job turnover, that's pretty long tenure.
So how are the Canadian geese treating your lawn this year?
P.S. Bush sucks...sucked, well, guess that's old hat now. :(
by av .
Honking away on the way to christen someone else's lawn.
PS: Now we have Obama and he shucks too.
AV ;)
I know he's not your answer, nobody is though, all politicians are a waste of time, effort and money. But Max doesn't like Obama, it wouldn't be normal to simply agree with him....I mean...nah, just wouldn't be right.
Gotta say, Obama's popular in Canada though, a little bit too far right wing for this nation though. Gawd, people in BC were taken straight from Woodstock and don't have a clue what's good for the country, besides saving whales and trees. I'm all for protecting natural resources but it's SO freakin left here it's not funny. If the corner store closes early, people chain themselves to trees in protest.
by av .
Where do I start! We should be rebuilding our infrastructure in this country from top to bottom, partnering with private enterprise, of course. We're supposed to be the greatest country in the world, but we don't look like it. The roads, the bridges, the rail system are all falling apart.
Where's our Keystone Pipeline? Maybe we should even consider an aquaduct system to help relieve drought-stricken areas of our country.
I can think of lots of better uses for the money than war and nation building in areas like Afghanistan where they just blow up everything we build anyway.
AV
by boxfiddler Hot topic
by av .
I never heard anyone call Obama too far right wing before. If you take him off our hands there are a lot of people in this country (including me) that would be eternally grateful. Alas, you are right, almost all politicians are a waste of time, except one; my wonderful Governor Chris Christie. Even the Dems love him in NJ.
I always wondered where all the people from Woodstock went after the concert. They couldn't go back home because they would have been drafted and sent to Nam. It all makes sense to me now.
AV
by hal 9000
That is because all things are relative. Obama is Right Wing but to the US People appears Left because he is more left that his current opponents which are so far Right Wing that any Real Right Wing would appear to be a Long Way left in compression.
But the reality with the recent Election in the US was that there where no Corporate Criminals who required a Presidential Pardon so there simply was not the funds to make the Republicans appear palatable to the General Public or at least the around 50% of the General Public who bother to actually vote.
The US is an Interesting place where the Individual States do everything possible to dissuade the Citizens from Voting and pass this off as Good. The end result is that less than half the population actually votes and the result is that under your Electoral System no single Candidate or Party gets a Mandate for anything that they do [i]no matter what they claim[/i] as at best they are elected on about 25% of the actual Population.
Remember when GWB was elected and the presidential pardon that was issued making the criminals from places like Glencorp able to return to the states? Mr Rich was the Most Wanted White Collar Criminal in the US History and he and his mates who had been under threat of Court Action for their Tax Avoidance Crimes in the US where all given Presidential Pardons very quietly and hardly reported at the time. He was in the Ten Most Wanted FBI listings of the time and was placed there for his actions by the previous administration at the behest of the Public who had been outraged by his Alleged Crimes.
It is things like that, that have caused American Business and Politics to be so badly thought of in most places including the US. ;)
Col
Sort by Trending