Everyone on food stamps isn't a freeloader

The problem with most conservatives is they don't realize how much they get for their money when they pay taxes that support social programs like food stamps. They get a lot.
For example, the most dangerous person in the world is someone who has nothing to lose. Show me someone who’s starving, and I’ll show you someone with nothing to lose. Social programs like food stamps give the person with nothing to lose something to lose.
It would be a shame for a conservative to lose it all just because they didn't want to pay a few cents for a social program that gives someone who doesn't have anything to lose, something to lose-know what I'm saying???
The, “let them eat cake,” social philosophy has been tried before. It didn’t work all that well back then. I guess you could always give it another shot-eh???

 

Garbagemen make very good livings, considering the low level of skill necessary to do the job. Truck drivers, once you learn to drive, I wouldn't call high skill level jobs, yet they can do very well. Upping minimum wage ups everything. Who loses money once it raises? Someone has to, since money doesn't grow on trees, except in Obamaland I guess=) You think the franchise owner can just remove the higher cost per worker from their paycheck? Franchise owners aren't exactly millionaires. Most certainly aren't. Someone who owns a pizza joint can't just make less, without probably firing other people to make up the difference. But I guess its all the business owners who take ALL the risk that need to sacrifice, right?

How about the govt sacrifices and fires about 30%(hypothetical) of its workers, because I guarantee most of them aren't needed. There is so much redundancy at the federal level its astounding.

Its amazing how much some people HATE business owners, but without them(us) who's going to employ the people who pay all those taxes? You think someone flipping burgers is going to have the smarts to employ 100s or 1000s of people? Guess again!

By the way, all those banks shouldn't have been bailed out, or at least every dime they received should've been paid back with interest, but then Obama and anyone else in charge didn't want to upset his cronies. But then thats what govt does, WASTE MONEY. The more you give them, the more they waste, sad to say, yet thats not how it should be. They do it, because they are NOT responsible for the waste. They are not punished for the waste. Fine, give them all this money, but when ANYONE screws up, they should be fired or jailed for crimes against the nation. Obama and everyone involved in giving Solyndra money shouldn't been fired, for example. If a private business loaned money to a company like that and it went THAT bad, everyone involved would've been fired for incompetence. I've watched it happen.

 

A couple of things. First of all, there are not nearly as many elderly on food stamps as democrats like to claim. In fact, only 1/3 of the seniors who are eligible for them are actually getting them. Second... the TOTAL of all seniors, children and disabled households on food stamps is 76%. That means that at LEAST 24% of the people on food stamps are healthy, capable citizens that are not providing for themselves. I can go into any town in America and find grocery stores, gas stations and fast food places up with help-wanted signs up everywhere. I can go on craigslist right now and find jobs available in practically every town in this country. These people only work 1 job and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about raising the minimum wage because they don't want to sacrifice or get their lazy asses up and get a 2nd or 3rd part time job and expect me and all the other productive citizens to pay for it.

Last... just because a household includes children... does not mean that they're the primary recipients of the food stamps. Their parent(s) is receiving the benefit and THEY are the ones who aren't getting out there and getting 1, 2 or 3 jobs or giving up their smartphones or cable or television etc etc and expecting everybody else to pay for it.

 

If you don't want employers to pay a living wage don't gripe about your tax dollars going to social programs to subsidize the workers of low paying employers !

 

It all depends on your household size (http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm#income), but when you add in earned income credit, the higher tax floor, etc for low income people, I really have to laugh at the whole "Living Wage" argument.


HH Gross Net
Size Income Income
1
$1,245 $ 958

2
1,681 1,293

3
2,116 1,628

4
2,552 1,963

5
2,987 2,298

6
3,423 2,633

7
3,858 2,968

8
4,294 3,303

Each additional member
+436 +335

 

I'm sorry you're so sensitive about your morally untenable position, but starving children to death is just wrong.....even for Republicans.

 

I agree. However we do have to consider the fact that raising wages will not happen voluntarily in the current economy. It would have to be done with a minimum wage raise across the board.

This will have lots of unintended consequences the most obvious two being job loss and inflation. I am not so sure a little inflation would be an altogether bad thing, it might help balance out some incorrect values in our current economy. Job loss could be really really bad. Under employed with assistance is a lot better than unemployed and dependent.

Looking at this problem we have to think about where the money comes from. In a global economy it comes from large groups including governments, global businesses and investment interest (banks). These groups work in a certain dynamic which may eventually benefit everyone, but benefit certain areas more than others at any given time.

Local economies are tied to the global economy by the large employment groups which pay workers and produce things we have grown dependent on. While technically innovative entrepreneurs might have bolstered local economies at one time it is no longer the current case. Relevant technical innovation is quickly absorbed into large global businesses who produce and implement them. Labor dependent production is largely being developed in high population areas with suffering economies, decent education and cheap labor (assuming the risk element is not too high).

So most of the money we are left with for local economies comes from local workers and business owners, the savings of local citizens, credit, and government investment.

It just doesn't look good from a big company perspective. If they can't make more money than they put in they will pull out.

I think you are right in your sentiment that it is not all the workers fault. It isn't. But finding blame and finding solutions are two entirely different things.

 

Last night I was behind a lady using EBT at a gas station. She was digging her card out of her coach purse and drove a newer Explorer. EBT. Gas station prices. Your tax dollars and the Dems want no reform. In FLorida we had to pass a law that casinos and strip clubs can no longer accept EBT.

 

Raising the minimum wage doesn't raise prices. It causes youth unemployment. Look at black youth unemployment before and after the 1960s minimum wage bump. It was lower under Jim Crowe then since the civil rights movement. Crazy.

 

They are putting their own ass on the line. When they win, they win, when they lose, they lose. It is commerce where money turns an economy. It isn't for children like the freeloading food stamp people who stole the PEOPLE's credit card to go shopping at Walmart. They are also known as thieves.

 

I subscribe to the belief that land and property should be put to the highest and best use. I rent property, sell it, live on it, and pay too much tax on it. So, to answer your question just as you thought I would, no.

 

So a program that helps those in need is a bad program?? We shouldn't help those in need.............therefore we shouldn't expect help for ourselves should we ever need it!!!! I bet you admit that these programs help people that really need it. If you dont, then you are dishonest!

Now, just because there is fraud, waste, and abuse in this program....................doesnt mean that the program is NOT helping those in need. If you were to come up with a program that helped those in need............humans are greedy and will abuse your system, then does that mean your program is not helping those in need? NO!

If I point out the abuse in your program, does that mean the GOOD of your program does not exist and that you are not really helping those in need???? NO!

What would you say if I opposed your program because of abuse, all the while forgetting the GOOD that your program does?????
What would you do if I wanted to get rid of your program because of abuse...................but didn't come up with a non abusive program of my own to help those in need? It would seem like Im not interested or willing to help those in need, huh????

Of course it looks like Im not interested in helping those in need, huh? Im willing to get rid of a program(that helps those in need) because of abuse without offering up a solution(another program that helps those in need). Im willing to get rid of a program that helps those in need and Im not willing to come up with another program that does the same.

 

of course you didn't read the article


post number 16, page two:

 

If that means, "I have been in the military 3 years now" my bad.

Again, I have never said military pay is too high. Complete opposite, unlike you who have called for cuts.

 

show me where i called for cuts

 

You conveniently leave out a few facts:

SNAP eligibility is limited to households with gross income of no more than 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).[ii]


The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.[iii]

Source: http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fi...-assistance-program/snap-myths-realities.aspx. BTW, I do believe that this is the same place where you got the data that you chose to present whild leaving out the rest. Kind od sleezy

Now figure out how many minimum wage jobs someone would have to hold to even get to these levels of income. In NJ it's $7.25. And why do you assume that the 24% who are not children, disabled or elderly? Perhaps they are the people caring for those children. How many jobs can you hold and care for children at the same time.? And one more thing...the $$$ that is given out in food stamps get spent in stores and goes back into the economy. So stop whining !!

 

"...the $$$ that is given out in food stamps get spent in stores and goes back into the economy."

Taxcutter says:
It would do so if the taxpayers kept it and spent it in stores themselves.

 

Poor people spend every dime on necessities. The well off put it in off shore banks

 

"The well off put it in off shore banks"

Taxcutter says:
George Soros, maybe.

But the average taxpayer's money gets spent in stores just like the food stamp money.

 

The Republicans don't care about stuff like that. Their main objective is apparently to end abortion and bring as many children into this world as they can before they starve them to death.

 

The stockholders are thieves. These nonproductive parasites steal the profits off the workers backs, profits that should go to his wages and benefits and food for his table, so I am not taxed to support him instead. They offshore their profits robbing American taxpayers of more taxes they must make up to pay the bills.

WALMART GAVE THOSE PEOPLE THE STUFF AS CHARITY - What is given as charity is not theft.

Stockholders are known as theives.

 

And you will never hear them argue against that truth either.

 

They are thieves of America! They are parasites sucking the lifeblood out of our country and giving nothing back in return. Money that should be in American banks for small business loans, student loans, housing and car loans, etc. They starve the American economy.

 

To whom does money belong to?